Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Exports to China (Streptomycin)

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much streptomycin was exported to China and Hong Kong in the first six months of 1950.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): So far as I am aware, none, Sir.

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that on 16th December the Parliamentary Secretary told the House that future exports to China for normal civilian purposes would be based on the amounts exported in the first six months of 1950? Will he give an assurance that, although we exported none during that period because we had none for export, it does not mean that we shall not export streptomycin to China for normal civilian purposes in the future?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The export of streptomycin is governed not by the exports of that particular drug during the period, but by the export of the group of drugs in which it is included.

Dr. Stross: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further on that? Will he give an assurance that there will be no ban on the export of streptomycin to China for normal civilian purposes?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think I can go further than I have gone already. The

amount of exports will be based upon the exports during that period, not of this specific drug, but of the group of drugs concerned.

Monopolies Commission (References)

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade what matters are already referred to the Monopolies Commission; what was respectively their original date of reference; when reports are anticipated; and what other matters are to be referred.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 16th and 19th December to my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) and Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers). I hope shortly to receive the report on non-ferrous metal semi-manufactures and, later this year, the report on imported timber. I cannot yet say how long it will take to complete the other outstanding inquiries, or what other matters will be referred to the Commission.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the very excellent work which the Commission are doing is to some extent being frustrated by lack of staff? Secondly, will he tell us whether he has now completed his consideration of whether he should refer the question of the textile machinery industry to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's well-deserved tribute to the work of the Commission, but I am afraid that, at the moment, I am not in a position to say what further reference I shall make. That does not mean that I am not giving anxious consideration to it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet made up his mind about what changes should be made in the legislation under which the Monopolies Commission was appointed? Will he bear in mind that if he were to come forward with a really effective Measure, it would receive support from this side of the House, so that there is no excuse for the Government in delaying this matter on account of lack of Parliamentary time?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly give consideration to any changes which might usefully be made in the Commission, but I dealt with the prospect of forthcoming legislation in a debate some time ago

Small Businesses

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of small businesses operating in the years 1938 and 1952, respectively.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the fact that this is a Question of more than academic interest, can my right hon. Friend say whether any sources of information exist?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend would see me, perhaps I could assist him to get at the point which, I think, he has in mind.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman say, as some guide towards the information which his hon. Friend would like to have, how many small businesses went bankrupt in 1938 and how many in 1952?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have dealt very fully with those matters on a previous occasion. I think it is unwise to base too many deductions on them, but the fact is that a number do go bankrupt under all Governments, and probably should.

Description
Number
£'000


1950
1951
1952
1950
1951
1952


Adding and listing machines
14,022
27,156
26,420
1,324
2,400
2,547


Accounting, book-keeping, billing or posting machines
1,898
1,482
547
650


TOTAL
14,022
29,054
27,902
1,324
2,947
3,197

Children's Footwear (Sizes)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that all sizes of children's footwear manufactured in accordance with the British Standard shall be available in three fittings.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have no powers which would enable me to put the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion into effect, but I am asking the British Standards Institution to have it considered by their technical committee on children's footwear.

Office Machinery

Mr. Fell: asked the President of the Board of Trade the export figures for the years 1950, 1951 and 1952, for calculating machines, listing machines, including printing calculators, and for accounting, billing, book-keeping and posting machines, respectively, which were wholly manufactured by the British office machinery industry.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While I could readily give figures of our total exports of office machinery, I regret that no figures are available to indicate to what extent the machinery exported incorporated components which were not wholly of British origin.

Mr. Fell: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend cannot give me the number of wholly-British manufacturers who are engaged in the manufacture of these machines?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend wishes, I can circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the total exports of office machinery, but I cannot distinguish between those which may have some non-British components in them and those which have not.

Following is the information:

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three widths of fitting are available only in highly-priced footwear, which penalises the children of poorer parents who cannot afford to pay the high prices?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I have said, I have no power to impose conditions on anybody, but I will draw the attention of those concerned to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he makes this compulsory he will also make dearer the cheaper footwear?

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have neither the intention nor the power to make this compulsory.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if shoes will not fit they cannot sell them? Is not that the solution to the problem?

Clothing (Quality Markings)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking arising from the rejection by the Wholesale Textile Association of the quality mark scheme of the British Standards Institution for clothing.

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Wholesale Textile Association has rejected the whole "Kite Mark" scheme for quality standards for clothing; and if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made towards the setting up of quality standards schemes in the textile industry to replace the old Utility specifications.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I assume that the hon. Members have in mind the adoption by the Council of the Wholesale Textile Association of a report by one of their sub-committees to the effect that the use of a "Kite Mark" or any other general mark on textiles is unnecessary and undesirable. That, of course, in no way prevents the British Standards Institution, of which the W.T.A. is an active member, from continuing its work on the preparation of British Standards in accordance with its normal procedure. I have always made it clear that the adoption of such standards is voluntary. Similarly, any "Kite Mark" scheme for goods reaching such standards must itself be first worked out and then applied on a voluntary basis. No action on my part is required. A statement of progress was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 5th February.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But will not the President recall that he scrapped the Utility scheme in the hope that manufacturers would voluntarily adopt the quality markings approved by the British Standards Institution? To that extent, has he not both misled himself and deluded the public?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think not. The Wholesale Textile Association is not the only association in this field; it does not represent all the manufacturers.

Mr. Lewis: Will the President give an assurance that if the association do not eventually come to some agreement on the question of standards and the quality of standards, he will reintroduce the whole procedure of the Utility specifications?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No. I think that would be a very drastic action to take.

Mr. Fort: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action which has been taken is welcomed among sections of the textile industry and that there is every hope that standards will shortly be agreed?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that fact.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is not this a rather serious development? The Wholesale Textile Association is a very important body and has, in effect, turned down the Government's proposals. Will not the right hon. Gentleman intervene in this matter and ask them why they have adopted this extraordinary attitude towards standards of quality?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Wholesale Textile Association, of course, condemned the use of the "Kite Mark." They did not condemn the working out and application of standards. I think it is important to draw a distinction between the two. For my own part, I disagree with the views expressed by the Wholesale Textile Association. I think that theirs is a retrograde step, and I hope they may reconsider the matter. In general, the textile industry are genuinely seeking to work out the policy which we suggested.

Light Industries, County Durham

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is being done to provide light industry in the area covered by the Easington Rural District Council, in the county of Durham, including the new town of Peterlee.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I share the right hon. Member's desire to see some light industry introduced into this area, and I am actively trying to provide sufficient


opportunities of employment here as in other parts of the North-Eastern Development Area.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that in other parts of County Durham light industry has been established whereas nothing has been done in this area?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We are prepared to consider suitable applications for building publicly financed factories in the district. Consideration of some suggestions of that kind is being given at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not want to exert any undue pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman, but would he be able to give me a more favourable answer in, say, a month's time?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman can always try.

Mr. Willey: In view of the exceptional circumstances at Peterlee, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the building of an advance factory there?

Mr. Thorneycroft: All these cases are under constant consideration.

Captain Pilkington: Has there not been inadequate Parliamentary representation?

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend that he should resign his seat and come up to my constituency and fight there?

Textile Machinery

Commander Donaldson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the value of textile machinery exported has increased from £40,435,086 in the year 1950 to an amount of £50,446,766 in the year ended 31st December, 1952; and if he will give an assurance that our own textile industry will now have a prior claim on new machines in order that we may compete fairly in the world markets.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am, of course, aware of this welcome increase. While it has been accomplished, the time taken to deliver machinery to our own textile industry has shortened considerably, and there is no need for any special priority arrangement of the kind my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Commander Donaldson: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that there is reason for concern in the textile industry in that our machines are being exported to our competitors overseas to compete in dollar and other markets, thus leading them to operate that type of machine? Will he make sure our textile manufacturing plants will receive those machines?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that those hon. Members in all parts of the House who have textile machinery manufacturers in their constituencies will agree that they are able and willing to handle exports and the re-equipment of the home industry.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind and tell his hon. and gallant Friend that there is widespread unemployment in the textile machinery industry now because countries are not able to purchase the exports of textile machinery? It is a very grave problem. So far from restricting exports, we want to increase them.

Copyright Committee's Recommendations

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made with the drafting of legislation to implement the Report of the Copyright Committee; what organisations he is consulting in this connection; and whether he has accepted the recommendation of the Committee that a standing tribunal should be established to decide disputes between collecting organisations controlling performing rights and would-be users of the works controlled.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The recommendations in the Report are being carefully considered, but I have no statement to make at this stage about legislation. No organisations have yet been consulted, but a number have commented on the Report. As my hon. Friend knows, the Copyright Committee did, of course, hear the views of the organisations concerned in the course of their inquiries.

Mr. Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend say, then, if he expects to be able to announce any decision this year?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would rather not tie myself down. It is a very large, complicated Report on an extremely complicated subject.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the claims of competing organisations in the field of musical copyright especially have been the source of embarrassment and confusion, and that a standing tribunal of the nature suggested would serve a very useful purpose?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear the point in mind.

Anglo-Czechoslovak Trade Agreement

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: asked the President of the Board of Trade how far any payment of gold or dollars by this country is involved in the trade agreement recently concluded with Czechoslovakia.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Under the current trade and financial agreement with Czechoslovakia, which was signed on 28th September, 1949, and the schedules to which are reviewed annually, payment for imports from Czechoslovakia is made in sterling.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent, as a result of the trade agreement recently concluded with Czechoslovakia, supplies, not otherwise obtainable of sugar, fat and products containing these commodities are available to British manufacturers and consumers; and if he will abandon this method of supplementing supplies as soon as possible.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 20th January last to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) which explained the origin and purpose of the five-year Anglo-Czechoslovak Trade and Financial Agreement of 1949 and gave details of the quotas fixed for sugar/fat, fondant and confectionery for the year ending June, 1953. There is also a quota of 20,000 tons of sugar for the same period. The amounts of the quotas to be fixed for imports from Czechoslovakia for the year July, 1953, to June, 1954, will be determined in the light of the conditions prevailing at the time, including the policy on imports from other sources.

Mr. Hudson: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that manufacturers and consumers alike desire less of these

costly mixtures and more of the ingredients from which they are made, and would he represent that fact to the Minister of Food?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear the point in mind, but, of course, my hon. Friend will appreciate that in any agreement of this kind both sides probably accept some things which they would prefer to do without.

Controlled Materials

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many materials or manufactured products cannot be purchased freely without a licence from, or the sponsorship of, his Department; whether he will give a list of such materials or manufactured products; and what is his policy towards the removal of such restrictions.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A permit from the Board of Trade is at present required for the purchase of home-produced nylon yarn for the manufacture of nylon stockings, but this arrangement will terminate on 30th April. The purchase of six other materials for use by industries for whom the Board of Trade is the production Department is subject to licensing. I am circulating the details of these arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the Question, my policy on this, as on other matters, is to get rid of such restrictions as soon as conditions allow.

Following are the details:
The purchase of steel, softwood and controlled hardwood for use in production for which the Board of Trade is the sponsoring authority, is subject to licensing by the Board of Trade. By arrangement with the Ministry of Materials, the purchase in the United Kingdom of selenium and diatomaceous earth imported from dollar sources for use in Board of Trade industries is restricted to firms whose need is sponsored by the Board of Trade. The purchase of starch for use in Board of Trade industries is subject to licensing by the Ministry of Food against sponsorship by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many orders issued by his Department are still operative which prohibit or limit the use of any material in the manufacture or construction of any article or structure; whether he will give a list of any such materials so affected; and what is his policy concerning the removal of such restrictions.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is only one Order, namely, the Nickel Prohibited Uses (Board of Trade) Order, 1951 (S.I. 1049 of 1951): and the only materials affected are nickel and nickel alloys. As regards the last part of the Question, my policy is to remove the remaining restrictions under this Order as soon as I can; but, so long as there is a world shortage of nickel and supplies remain subject to international allocation, we must continue to exercise economy in its use and to concentrate on meeting the needs of defence and other essential industries.

Food Imports

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage was the volume of total food imports during 1952 of the volume during 1951.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The volume of imports of food and drink in 1952 was 92 per cent. of that in 1951.

Raw Cotton Imports (Review Committee)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement on the future policy of raw cotton importation and of his recent conversations with the trade organisations involved.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) on 5th March. I am glad to say that all the organisations which were represented on the Cotton Import Committee have agreed to be represented on the Review Committee. I am circulating the Members' names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the trade organisations involved were pleased and satisfied with the arrangements made?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The trade organisations involved, that is, the spinners, the merchants, and the trade unions, have all expressed their willingness to co-operate in finding an answer to some of the practical problems involved, and I should like to express my appreciation of their action in this matter.

Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider giving the same facilities to the wool industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question on the wool industry, I should consider it.

The following have accepted invitations from the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Materials to serve on the Cotton Import (Review) Committee:

The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Hopkins, G.C.B. (Chairman).
Mr. Richard Brooks.
Mr. E. W. Cockroft, O.B.E.
Mr. G. Hasty.
Mr. W. B. Hutchinson.
Mr. A. J. Kentish-Barnes.
Sir Ralph Lacey.
Mr. A. Naesmith, C.B.E,. M.A., J.P.
Mr. F. Napper.
Mr. A. Roberts, C.B.E., J.P.
Mr. C. Schofield, O.B.E., J.P.
Sir E. Raymond Streat, C.B.E.
Mr. A. V. Symons.
Mr. W. T. Winterbottom, C.B.E.

Mr. P. W. Carey of the Ministry of Materials and Mr. R. R. D. McIntosh of the Board of Trade have been appointed Joint Secretaries.

China, Earthenware and Sanitary Ware

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of all forms of china, earthenware and sanitary ware exported to Australia in the last quarters of 1951 and 1952; and what estimate he has made of recovery in these export figures in the near future.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Exports of china, earthenware and sanitary ware to Australia during the last quarters of 1951 and 1952 were valued at £1,063,000 and £169,000, respectively. It is not possible to make the estimate for which the hon. Member asks in the last part of the Question.

Dr. Stross: Will the President bear in mind that exports of these commodities, certainly china and earthenware, to Australia require specific decorations to fulfil the particular type of demand? That being the case, it is difficult to re-export them to any other part of the world easily, and if the right hon. Gentleman can make representations to the Australian Government, will he please assure them that that is a further problem and difficulty of our manufacturers here?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope, of course, that the exports of these goods may benefit somewhat from the relaxations recently announced by the Australian Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether these articles are affected by the increase in tariffs in Australia announced a few days ago?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Not without notice.

Flower Bulbs

Mr. Alport: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the quota for the import of spring flower bulbs for the 1953–54 season has now been agreed, in view of the fact that growers must complete their contracts at an early date.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The arrangements for the import of flower bulbs for the year July, 1953, to June, 1954, are still under consideration, and I shall make an announcement as soon as I can.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious inconvenience and cost to growers if at a later date the total quota is below that expected, which means they must re-negotiate their contracts? Will he hasten an announcement of the quota this year?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will announce the quota as soon as I can, but discussions with the Dutch on trade for 1953 are not quite complete.

Mr. T. Brown: May I stress the real urgency and importance of this matter, because already people are asking if they can put out quotations for flower bulbs for planting next spring or this autumn? It is very important that flower growers should understand what they may expect at a very early date.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of this industry, in view of the new developments in West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, when making his decision?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall certainly bear these matters in mind.

Unemployment, Caernarvonshire

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to check the rise in unemployment in South Caernarvonshire.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 17th December, 1952, about unemployment in the Lleyn area. We shall continue to do what we can to help; but I would in fairness remind the hon. Member that it is not easy to encourage new industries into the area. There is, of course, as he knows, a large seasonal element in the unemployment there.

Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment problem in this area is now almost as bad as in pre-war days, and that we depend very largely on small but efficient engineering works, and that if he could help to take steps in those factories, by sub-contracts by Government agencies, an appreciable difference would be made? Would he look into that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear in mind the points which the hon. Gentleman makes, but he will appreciate that there is a very large seasonal element in the situation in this particular area.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that his reply, referring my hon. Friend to his answer of last year, indicates that the Government have no constructive proposals to deal with the problem, and are we to assume that there is nothing at all different from last year in the Minister's approach?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the hon. Gentleman adduces rather more than was implied by my answer.

Filling Stations (Branded Petrol Supplies)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the oil companies are boycotting new petrol-filling stations in Sheffield for which planning permission and building licences have been issued; and whether he will bring this to the notice of the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware that supplies of some brands of petrol are being withheld from some filling stations. I will bear this matter in mind in choosing matters for reference to the Monopolies Commission, and will certainly take note of any information which the hon. Member may care to send me about cases in Sheffield.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that it is not only some petrol companies which are refusing some brands, but all petrol companies are refusing all brands to particular stations in order to set up a monopoly in a particular area after planning consent has been given, and will he consider the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will give consideration to this matter in relation to any reference to the Monopolies Commission.

Industrial Production

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, taking 1948 as 100, industrial production in Germany is now 253 and in Britain only 119; and, in view of the fact that Britain is not, and cannot become, self-supporting and must export at world competitive prices or starve, what steps he is taking to improve this state of affairs.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The need for increased exports in the face of growing competition from other supplying countries is consistently stressed by myself and other members of Her Majesty's Government. I would add, however, that the figures quoted in my hon. Friend's Question are not really comparable; Germany's industrial production in 1948 was still at a far lower level than the United Kingdom, compared with pre-war.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the President of the Board of Trade ask the B.B.C. to allow him to broadcast the truth of the facts to the nation before it is too late, and is he aware that if he has not the time to do that I will willingly deputise for him?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for 1938 and for last year?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Not from memory.

Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House, if these figures are not comparable, what are the comparable figures between German production and British production for these years?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend would like to put down a Question I will do my best to answer it. I do not carry all the production figures in my head.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that during the whole period of the Labour Government production went up and up and that since this Government have been in office it has been going down and down? Is he not further aware of the fact that the best thing he can do is to ask the Prime Minister to hand in the resignation of this Government?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is raising rather wider issues than those in the Question.

Tariffs and Trade Agreement (Japan)

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the admission of Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will enable her to claim a right to most-favoured nation treatment, which was denied to her under the Japanese Peace Treaty; and if he will take this factor into account in opposing Japan's membership of the organisation.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is, of course, true that, if we assume the obligations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade towards Japan, we shall assume an obligation to accord her most-favoured-nation treatment. But, as my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade indicated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on 3rd March, the Inter-sessional Committee has suggested, in its recent report, certain provisions for permitting a suspension of obligations towards any country whose competition caused violent disruption of trade. No decisions have been made in this matter and, in considering these suggestions, we shall certainly take into account the points to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this right to deny the most-favoured-nation treatment to Japan is the United Kingdom's most powerful weapon against cut-throat Japanese competition and that there will be much misgiving in Lancashire if that weapon is thrown away?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This raises large and complex questions of commercial policy. As I have said, no decisions have been made, but a report has been referred to the Governments concerned.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course we must protect ourselves against unfair Japanese production through the International Labour Organisation and in other ways, but will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we must hold out the hope of a prosperous future to the Japanese people if they are to remain a democratic and peaceful nation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it was the object of the Inter-sessional Committee to try to find, if possible, a compromise between those two views.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be a reasonable period during which the Japanese will be put to the test to see whether they are going to play fair in normal methods of trading?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have said that this report has only just been received and is still under consideration.

Mr. S. Silverman: Whatever may be the truth about Japan, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is even more important to guarantee a prosperous future to Lancashire, and will he say what steps the Government are taking to prevent Japan seizing to its own advantage the trade with China, which the policy of the Government has prevented us from doing?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question refers to the specific recommendations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of Lancashire are very close to my heart.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM INDUSTRY

Cinematograph Films Act (Registrations)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade what changes he is contemplating asking Parliament to make in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, in the light of Mr. Justice Vaisey's judgment in the Monsoon case.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: None, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from the answer that the right hon. Gentleman would regard the recent decision as applicable to the rather special facts of

that case and that it will not be interpreted by the Board of Trade to exclude from the British quota certificate any genuinely made British films?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It certainly would not exclude any genuinely made British films. I think the judgment in that case was based on the facts of that case, which, as the hon. Member knows, were rather special.

Production Fund (Continuance)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to arrest the decline of the British film industry, in view of uncertainty about the future of the British Film Production Fund and declining attendances at cinemas.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that there has been a decline in British film production.

Mr. Swingler: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the recent statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the declining revenue from Entertainments Duty, which the Financial Secretary admitted was partly due to a decrease in attendances at the cinemas, and will he say whether he will enter into discussions now with the Chancellor about this aspect of the matter? Also, would he, perhaps, make an announcement about the quota and the Eady Levy?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Questions of revenue, of course, should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am happy to say that the forward bookings of films at present are looking healthier than they have for some time.

Mr. O'Brien: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the British Film Production Fund.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the continuing uncertainty as to the future of the Eady scheme is having serious effects upon the forward prospects of British film production; and whether he is now able to say when a decision will be announced.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that support for British film production of the kind provided by the British Film Production Fund should continue after August, 1954, when the present scheme is due to end. I think it desirable that extension of the scheme for a period of at least three years should be achieved, if possible, by voluntary agreement within the industry. I hope that such agreement will be forthcoming; but I am convinced that the production of British films must be maintained by some such means, and, if need be, the Government will be prepared to seek powers to institute a statutory scheme.

Mr. O'Brien: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful and welcome reply, may I ask him if he will undertake to secure a voluntary agreement between the various sections of the trade and impress upon those sections the need for such a voluntary agreement before he decides to embark on legislation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly I should very much prefer a voluntary agreement, but I have made this statement in order to give that assurance which, I think, is necessary to the production end that some such arrangements as the Eady Scheme will go on.

Mr. Shepherd: As it is quite certain that some of the delays are due to the fact that there are negotiations going on with the Treasury about the Entertainments Duty, will my right hon. Friend co-operate with the Chancellor with a view to trying to ensure there is no delay after the notification of the Budget details?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I regard the continuation of the British Film Production Scheme as something quite separate from the question of the level of Entertainments Duty, which must be judged every year upon its merits.

Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is satisfied that three years is really long enough for this purpose? Will he, particularly if legislation is necessary, consider extending that to, say, five years, or even longer?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in

mind, but I think in principle we agree that an adequate period of security in this matter should be laid down in advance, preferably by voluntary agreement.

Mr. Swingler: As the negotiations for a voluntary agreement have been going on for some months, would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the principal obstacle which prevents a voluntary agreement being arrived at, since negotiations have been going on for more than six months?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think it would be helpful if I started to throw obstacles between the parties to a voluntary agreement. I think the best thing I can do is to encourage them to bring them to a head and offer any assistance that lies within my power.

Quotas

Mr. O'Brien: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now made a decision about the quota of British films to be shown by exhibitors during the year beginning 1st October, 1953.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. After consulting the Cinematograph Films Council I have decided not to make any Order this year to amend the Cinematograph Films (Quotas) Amendment Order, 1950, but to leave the prescribed quotas at 30 per cent. for first feature films, and 25 per cent. for the supporting programme, for the exhibitors' quota year beginning 1st October, 1953.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Post-War Credits

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of post-war credits, standing in the names of deceased persons, has been paid out to-date to their next-of-kin;
(2) how many holders of post-war credits have died before becoming eligible to draw their post-war credits.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider paying out the post-war


credits immediately on the decease of the holder, because it is quite possible that post-war credits may be held by the Treasury for decades and even centuries?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is an interesting question, but it is not this Question.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Financial Secretary aware that in many instances the wife of the deceased may be a little younger and left in dire circumstances and often dependent upon the family? Cannot there be a scheme whereby post-war credits can be paid to those families, if they find themselves in dire need?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put that question on the Order Paper.

Sir Edward Keeling: Should not the figures asked for, at least in Question No. 29, be kept from now on, so as to show the unfairness of the present rule?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without prejudice to the innuendo in that question, I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister state the actual reason for refusing any relaxation in this matter? Is it because the Government have not the money, or is it because of the fear of inflation? Will he tell us the actual position?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put down a Question on the subject, I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. Bence: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in framing his Budget, he will improve the conditions on which post-war credits are held, by enabling holders of these credits to secure repayment earlier than they can at present do so.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that unfavourable conditions were introduced after post-war credits were

instituted and that is a breach of faith to the people who hold post-war credits? Does he not also realise that this is a matter which should be rectified, and will he take steps to rectify it in the interests of honesty and fair play?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While not accepting the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was any breach of faith, I am bound to remind him that if there were, nothing was done to put that right during the six years of the previous Administration.

Mr. Shinwell: Now that the hon. Gentleman has shown that he is not prepared to answer questions about the past and cannot answer questions about the future, will he say what he can answer?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman might recall that in my previous answer to a supplementary question I drew his attention and that of the House to the past of the previous Administration.

Small Savings (Government Securities)

Mr. Morley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider taking steps to issue Government securities with guaranteed purchasing power, with the amount of interest and capital repayment based on the cost of living, in order to encourage saving.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mr. Morley: Will not the Financial Secretary agree that the continuing fall in the value of money has made the interest on post office deposits a negative quantity, and cannot he frame some sort of security to attract more savings which would guarantee the integrity of the capital value?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little out of date in the implication of his supplementary question. I would draw his attention to the fact that the cost-of-living index figure today is at the same level as it was last June.

Sir H. Williams: Would the Minister consult the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) as to the kind of security to issue?

Purchase Tax

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his next Budget, he will endeavour to remove some of the anomalies of Purchase Tax, in accordance with the list of suggestions recently sent to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend will bear in mind my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions.

Brigadier Clarke: Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours on the chance that Purchase Tax may also be removed from essential articles in every-day use?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have read my hon. and gallant Friend's letter on that subject.

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a committee of people in touch with the necessities of everyday life to advise him on the anomalies of Purchase Tax and the articles of common usage which should, to reduce the cost of living, be relieved of Purchase Tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Miss Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole matter is in complete chaos, and is it not about time that the Treasury got some people who really understood this Purchase Tax question?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as any anomalies which my hon. Friend may have in mind are concerned, I have never found that we have any lack of assistance on this subject both from the industries concerned and from hon. Members.

Mr. Jay: Does not the hon. Lady realise——

Hon. Members: Order.

Miss Ward: Let him have his say.

Mr. Jay: Does not the hon. Lady realise——

Mr. Speaker: Questions have to be addressed to Ministers, not to hon. Members.

Petrol (Tax)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his next Budget, he will reduce or eliminate petrol tax on public transport as this is the main reason for the increase in fares.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Brigadier Clarke: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the tax on petrol and diesel oil affects the cost of living, and will he try to do something about it?

Scottish Timber (Credit Facilities)

Mr. Spence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allow increased credit facilities to be available, if required, to carry out the financing and marketing of the abnormally large quantities of timber which will be processed in Scotland this year.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): The provision of credit is a matter for the banks, and I have no reason to doubt that all justifiable needs of credit for the marketing of timber this year will be met.

Foreign Ships (Sterling Purchases)

Sir E. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the prohibition of the expenditure of sterling by British travellers in foreign ships cannot be enforced in Italian ships which present to them wine lists that give prices in sterling but not in lire; and what steps he is taking to prevent this breach of British law by such travellers.

Mr. Maudling: We cannot prevent foreign ships from offering prices in sterling. While I deprecate this practice, I do not agree that this makes it impossible for British travellers to comply with our exchange-control rules.

Sir E. Keeling: Is my hon. Friend aware that these ships print two lists, one in sterling and one in lire, and not only do they induce British travellers to break the British law by showing them only the sterling list, but they also diddle them by converting lire to sterling at a too low rate of exchange and by not including the cheapest wines in the sterling list at all? They carry British mails.

Mr. Maudling: I am glad that my hon. Friend's researches were sufficiently exhaustive to prevent his being diddled.

Foreign Travel Allowance

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost to the Treasury would be, using the basis of the figures available for last year, if the foreign exchange allowance for United Kingdom tourists travelling outside the sterling area for the present year were increased to £35 per tourist.

Mr. Maudling: I estimate that the additional cost in foreign exchange might be from £5 to £6 million in a full year.

Mr. Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Government hope to make their announcement about the foreign exchange allowance for tourists?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot add anything to the very full reply made by my right hon. Friend on 23rd February.

Mr. Lewis: But that was not an answer at all. It was a complete evasion.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is our hope that when he next comes to make a statement on the subject he will do so in a better temper than he did last time?

Mr. Maudling: I shall be glad to convey to my right hon. Friend any serious point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Crown Pieces (Minting)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the total cost of labour and materials used in minting the new crown pieces.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the figure asked for by the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not that a really astonishing statement? How is it that this decision has suddenly been arrived at? Is it because we have discovered, after questioning, that it costs a halfpenny to make a farthing? What is the reason for the refusal to give the
cost?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The reason is that the Royal Mint undertakes a considerable amount of work for foreign Governments in respect of which it has to tender against competition. It would

obviously hinder it in its admirable activities as a trading concern doing work for foreign Governments if details of its costs had to be disclosed to its competitors.

Mr. Paget: Is it a fact, therefore, that it mints crowns for foreign Governments—and, if so, which Governments—but does not mint farthings for foreign Governments, because we have been given the costs in that case?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put that question down I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is this a change of policy, or has the Government's spokesman always refused to give the cost?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, but there are a number of precedents for refusing disclosure and, I think, only one, the farthing, for revealing the cost.

Mr. Vane: Will my hon. Friend say whether he is likely to refer the activities of the Royal Mint to the Monopolies Commission?

Government Departments (Amalgamation)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated annual saving which will be effected by the extinction of the Ministry of Pensions.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated saving in money and staff of the decision to combine the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Pensions, giving separate figures for 1953–54 and the first full year of the amalgamation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 2nd March.

Mr. Simmons: Are we to understand that the Government have taken the decision while being entirely in the dark about the saving in staff and money? Before such an attack was made upon ex-Service men, surely there must have been good grounds for it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While not accepting the implication of the last part of the supplementary question, which is a


very obverse fact, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the supplementary question was both asked of and answered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jay: Though it may not be surprising to find that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question, are we now to understand that the Treasury also does not know the figures?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to put that question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the obvious reluctance of the Government to give any of these figures, are we to understand that, instead of there being a saving, there will be increased cost under this arrangement?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever is the amount of the financial saving compatible with an efficient service to the pensioner, it will be extremely welcome to the taxpayers? Is my hon. Friend also aware that the general body of taxpayers will welcome this measure as a precursor to the elimination of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Materials?

War Damage Payments

Mr. Odey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now settle all claims still outstanding for business chattels insured under Part II of the War Damage Act, 1943.

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates the commencement of payments under Part II of the War Damage Act, 1943.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) on 25th November last.

Mr. Odey: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that hon. Members on this side of the House at any rate, and, I imagine, many hon. Members opposite, expect the Government to act in these matters according to the finest principles of human conduct, and that it is wrong to accept a premium and then not be prepared to pay claims?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, be aware that out of an original total of £92 million, £67 million has already been paid.

Tobacco Coupons (Personal Case)

Mr. Padley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Mr. J. W. Henderson, 22, James Road, Blaengarw, was deprived of tobacco relief coupons for eight weeks when, through no fault of his own, the issue of his pension book was delayed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already told the hon. Member, it is, I am afraid, not possible to issue tobacco duty relief coupons to a pensioner until he produces his pension order book at the Post Office.

Mr. Padley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 13th February I received a letter from the Minister of National Insurance handsomely apologising to my constituent for the failure to issue the pension book? Is he aware that ordinary mortals find it difficult to understand why when one Ministry admits responsibility for failure to issue a pension book at the correct date, another Ministry, the Treasury, refuses to grant the concession decided upon by the House? Is there no method whereby the great brain power of the Civil Service can solve this relatively simple administrative problem?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have been into this matter, about which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to write to me. As I have already explained, the trouble is that it is necessary to produce the pension book for the coupons to be issued. That is an essential part of the scheme, which was introduced not by this Government but by their predecessors.

Mr. Simmons: Is this a sample of the kind of treatment ex-Service men will get when the Ministries are amalgamated?

Mr. Paget: When the Government have acknowledged that it was their fault that the man did not have the pension book, surely they can pay out 10s.?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Gentleman knew anything about the scheme, he would know that it involved not the paying out of 10s. but the issuing of a book of coupons.

Tobacco Shredding Machines (Tax)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds shredding and pressing machines, used by amateur tobacco growers in the preparation of their cured leaf, have recently been made subject to Purchase Tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These machines are taxed under Group 12 of the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948. They have only recently been marketed on a commercial scale.

Mr. Vane: Will my hon. Friend see whether this Purchase Tax can be reduced, and, further, will he look into the means whereby the amateur tobacco grower could save this country dollars; at the present moment he is operating under a set of rules which amount almost to persecution?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The marketing of these machines on the present commercial scale is itself an indication of the success of the concession to the amateur tobacco growers and an indication of the extent to which that concession is fully used.

Dental Sticks (Tax)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the removal of Purchase Tax from dental sticks in the interest of dental health, he refuses to remove tooth paste from the incidence of Purchase Tax on similar grounds.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend appears to have been misinformed. The tax applies to dental sticks at the same rate as it does to tooth paste.

Miss Ward: I think my hon. Friend had better look at that again, because I saw the other day that dental sticks have been relieved of Purchase Tax, and I am delighted to know that tooth paste is going to be relieved of Purchase Tax. I thank my hon. Friend very much.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should hate to obtain my hon. Friend's gratitude by false pretences.

Mr. Snow: When the hon. Gentleman is considering the removal of Purchase Tax on tooth paste, will he bear in mind the fraudulent claims of the so-called

chlorophyl tooth paste and remember the current trade adage:
Look at the goat upon the hill.
He is filled with chlorophyl,
And he stinks like nobody's business"?

East Coast Flood Losses (Compensation)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, following consideration of the problem of the best procedure to deal with the financial situation of trading organisations where the losses caused by the recent floods exceed £5,000 and are not covered by insurance, he can yet make a statement to clarify the situation;
(2) what compensation can be expected by householders and the business community where damage by the recent floods amounts to between £2,500 and £5,000 which is not covered by insurance.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the Government will meet out of public funds claims for compensation from those who suffered damage or loss of houses, farms or business property in the recent East Coast floods where these cannot be covered by private insurance or the Lord Mayor's Fund.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the assistance, over and above their contribution to the Lord Mayor's Fund, which the Government will give to private persons who suffered damage in the recent storms.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer hon. and right hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 5th March, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Dodds: For a business-man's Government, is not this an astounding reply? Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that Parliament and the people accepted the Prime Minister's words, that the flood disaster losses would be a national responsibility? Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there are scores of business firms who are told to apply to the Lord Mayor's Fund for £2,500, and unless they get more than that they might as well go into liquidation? That promise must be honoured.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to consult the answer to which I have referred him——

Mr. Dodds: I have seen it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —he will see the magnificent degree to which my right hon. Friend's undertaking has been honoured.

Mr. Dodds: What undertaking?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As regards the latter part of his question, if he will look at the statement that has been issued on behalf of the Lord Mayor——

Mr. Dodds: I have got it here.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —and the statements which from time to time have been made from this Box by my right hon. and learned Friend, he will see the massive contribution that has been made to those who have suffered from this disaster.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, and, if not, is the Prime Minister aware—because the Prime Minister made the original statement in very general terms asserting that the nation ought to accept responsibility in this matter—that many people are in grave financial positions over their bungalows and small houses and that a number of moderate-size business concerns are in grave difficulty? Ought not the Government to be more forthcoming in giving financial assistance in addition to the Lord Mayor's Fund, which is doing excellent work, and can the hon. Gentleman, or the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister's reputation is involved in this—say what they are really doing to live up to the right hon. Gentleman's specific promise that this would be boldly and courageously faced as a national responsibility?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I need only attempt to refer the right hon. Gentleman to some of the contributions that have been made with respect to rehabilitation of agricultural land, reconstruction of sea defences, emergency feeding, stopping the gaps, lodging payments and so on, and the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed the last sentence of the answer to which I referred his hon. Friend.

Mr. Morrison: That does not answer the question. The Financial Secretary must not be as smart on the Treasury Bench as he was in Opposition. I want to know, apart from the point of the subjects to which the Government are contributing, whether the Government intend to live up to the undertaking that they would accept national responsibility for this matter, and are they coming to the point that they will give financial help to the extent that will inevitably enable the business man, manufacturers of moderate capital and people with houses to get going again, and whether they are going to stand by them in their hour of trouble.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: rose——

Several Hon. Members: The Prime Minister.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The number of statements that have been made in this House by my right hon. Friends and by myself on different aspects of this matter seem to me to indicate that we are clearly carrying out my right hon. Friend's undertaking.

Mr. Alport: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many other ways in which the Government can assist firms who are placed in a very difficult position, apart from direct financial aid, and will my hon. Friend consider any suggestions along these lines that may be put to him?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is the number of the statements that have been made about this matter that has led to confusion in the public mind, and that there is a considerable demand from individuals and organisations that have suffered heavy damage to know what is going to be done and what "national responsibility" in this sense really means?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the force of what the hon. Gentleman says as to the number of statements. It may well be that it will be possible to coordinate them into a complete statement, and while I give no undertaking to do that, I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Morrison: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister direct? Will he be so good as to make a statement as to


what he meant in his original statement that the nation would boldly face up to a national responsibility?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): We were confronted with a grave national disaster and I certainly, in speaking on that Monday, had in mind that we should endeavour to face the physical effects in regard to restoration of land, reparation and repair of houses, safety of life and so forth. I was not at that moment contemplating the detailed processes which arise in making sure that in no circumstances had any person been liable, whatever their business, to loss in money from that event. I was dealing with the broad physical effects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I do not say that the other does not require consideration, and great consideration is being given to it by the Lord Mayor's Fund, to which we give £ for £, and also in the very large sums of money which will fall upon the Treasury directly or through the local authorities, for all the great measures of repair and reconstruction. But this is certainly no time to slacken off the efforts to endeavour to mitigate the force of this blow upon individuals. We cannot undertake—I never intended in what I said to undertake—that the business affairs of every shop or company affected would be restored by the nation.

Mr. Jay: Is there any reason why the Government should not say clearly that where private losses in houses, farms or businesses are not covered by private insurance or by the Lord Mayor's Fund, the Government will give compensation just as in the case of war damage?

The Prime Minister: These matters should not be answered offhand across the Table. They require careful consideration. I am very doubtful whether, in the cases of other disasters which have fallen upon us, all indirect and consequential losses have been made good by the State.

Mr. Jay: I asked the Home Secretary that question three weeks ago and he asked me to wait and give the Government time to think it over. The three weeks have now passed.

The Prime Minister: They have not been sterile. I have not participated in the detailed discussions. Perhaps a

Question addressed to the Home Secretary would show to the right hon. Gentleman exactly how the matter stands.

Mr. Hare: In view of the considerable concern which is obviously felt on both sides of the House, I would like the Financial Secretary to give an undertaking that he will make a complete statement—or his right hon. Friend—just to show us what the real position is. If we could have that, it would perhaps be more possible for the Financial Secretary to consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport).

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that it would fall to me to make such a general statement as my hon. Friend has been good enough to suggest, but we will certainly consider whether it would not be advantageous for this to be done by one of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Morrison: In view of the Prime Minister's statement of 2nd February, namely:
It is not yet possible to measure the magnitude of the loss either in life or in material, but it is clear that the catastrophe is one which will require to be treated upon a national basis and broadly, as a national responsibility."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1951; Vol. 510, c. 1483.]
and in view of the ambiguity of the situation and the grave anxiety and possible suffering of many people of middling or modest means, I must give notice that we must ask the Government to provide facilities for a debate in order that the matter may be cleared up.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We are to have a debate on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (MR. SANDERS)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the offer made by the Hungarian Government in regard to the release of Mr. Sanders.

The Prime Minister: Since my statement in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question on 2nd of March, the Sultan of Perak has commuted the death sentence on Lee Meng to one of life imprisonment.


I am, however, not yet able to make a statement with regard to the Hungarian Government's offer in this matter.

Mr. Davies: I take it from the Prime Minister's reply that he stands by the answer he gave to a supplementary question last week, in which he said that once the capital sentence had been resolved, then it did not exclude further consideration of this matter, and does that mean that the principle of exchange in this case has not been entirely rejected?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that certainly is the fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the Cardiff and District Women's Liberal Association concerning their resolution sent to him on the need for electoral reform.

The Prime Minister: An acknowledgment was sent to the letter to which the hon. Member refers, and I have noted its contents. I have no statement to make on the subject of electoral reform at present.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that these ladies are not at all satisfied with the Prime Minister's reply; that they have expressed their very great disappointment of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government; and may I ask if he has now said his last word on this subject?

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Prime Minister, as an old member of the Liberal Party, if he will get together with the very promising recruit to the principle of electoral reform, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), to see if together they cannot send a joint and more favourable answer to these excellent ladies?

The Prime Minister: I had the opportunity and advantage of receiving a deputation some time ago, but no definite results were arrived at as a result of those discussions. I am bound to say that I fear that a Measure dealing with this subject would not receive any very marked support from any part of the present House of Commons.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he was a Member of the Liberal Government the Government were not in favour of Proportional Representation, or at any rate they did nothing about it? Is he also aware that when he was Leader of the Opposition he urged very strongly upon the Labour Government that we should appoint a Select Committee of inquiry? It is true we rejected the proposal, but, now that the right hon. Gentleman is in power, is he going to appoint a Select Committee of inquiry and can he say whether or not the Conservative Party is in favour of some form of Proportional Representation or the alternative vote?

The Prime Minister: I really might retaliate by asking those questions in almost exactly the same words of the right hon. Gentleman.

KENYA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (MEMBER'S ARREST)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning a matter of which I have given you notice, although I may have made it rather short, and on which I have given the Secretary of State for the Colonies notice, which I am afraid was even shorter. It is whether the arrest and detention, without charge, of a member of the Colonial Legislature set up by this House and without full self-government is a matter coming within the cognisance of this House as a breach of Privilege?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was good enough to give me notice, which was rather short, but was quite long enough for me to determine that no possible question of the Privileges of this House could arise from the circumstances which he is postulating.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Accepting that reply, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the arrest without charge and detention of Mr. Fanuel Odede, a member of the Legislative Council of Kenya.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the arrest without charge and detention of Mr. Fanuel Odede, a member of the Legislative Council of Kenya.
I regret to say that this matter does not fall within the Standing Order. It has been done by due process of law, and I cannot myself make it agree with the terms of the Standing Order.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: May I put this point to you, Sir? Mr. Odede is a nominated African Member of the Kenya Legislative Council. He has been detained without any charge and without any prospect of trial. Is it not a matter of urgent importance that a member of a Colonial Legislature is placed in that position and that the matter should be discussed by his House?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that this man has been detained under powers possessed by the Governor to deal with the emergency. Even in our own case, where an hon. Member of this House was detained under similar emergency legislation during the war, it was held to be outside the Standing Order. I could not possibly ask the House to proceed to a debate on this matter without violating all the precedents.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask, through you, Sir, if in view of the circumstances of this case——

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you not given a definite Ruling in this matter, and is it not contrary to the procedure of the House that matters of this kind, under this rule, on which a definite Ruling is given by the Speaker, are subject subsequently to interrogation and debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly true, but I did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman was rising to debate the matter.

Mr. Griffiths: If the Prime Minister had waited for a minute, he would have heard that I was not challenging your Ruling, Sir, but was asking whether, in view of the importance of the matter, he would take an early opportunity to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. What the right hon. Gentleman asked was whether the Colonial Secretary will take an early opportunity of making a statement on the matter, and I think that is a matter for him.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

As amended (in Committee and on re-committal) further considered.

Clause 3.—(SUPERVISION OF IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY BY BOARD.)

3.43 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, after "conditions," to insert "and the equitable distribution."
I feel sure that this Amendment will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman on two simple grounds. It is both logical and advisable for practical reasons. Let me first deal with the good sense or the logic of the matter in general. The Clause as drafted provides that when the Iron and Steel Board discharge their paramount duty under the Bill of exercising a general supervision of the iron and steel industry they have to do so with the view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products. There follow certain particular instances of the matters that they have to keep under review including, for instance, the arrangements for procuring and distributing raw materials and fuel for use in the iron and steel industry and, a very important matter and one with which another Clause of the Bill is concerned, the prices charged for iron and steel products.
"Supply" is, of course, a slightly ambiguous word but, as used in this context, we ought at least to make it clear which of the two possible meanings it has. Does it, as I understand it to do, refer to production and production only, or does it refer both to production and or distribution? The reason I take it to refer to production is that the words that go with it seem more appropriate to production than to distribution, and, of course, it is possible for the Board to endeavour to promote an efficient, economic and adequate production and, at the same time, to neglect, because they are not enjoined to regard, the distribution of what is produced.
I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary will agree at once that any such review of

the iron and steel industry would necessarily be quite incomplete because, put broadly, what we are concerned with, and what the Board are concerned with, is the national interest. For that purpose we do not merely want an adequate supply, we do not merely require that, in order to make the industry efficient, its product should be adequately and economically produced but that, when produced, it gets round to those who need iron and steel. This is an industry which is producing what I could roughly call a primary product, one the vital importance of which both sides of the House are very well aware.
Clearly, it verges on the ridiculous, if the Board are to be efficient guardians of the national interest even within this very limited sphere of review, to set the Board only to look at production without, at the same time, considering distribution. When we get to distribution, what is it that we want? The words "efficient," "economic" and the rest, become rather inappropriate. What I hope we want on both sides of the House is obvious, namely, that when the product is there it should be distributed equitably among those who need it.
It has to be borne in mind that there are reasons for putting a decision of this sort expressly into the Bill and I need take only two of them. The first is that during what one might call the transition period, when the organs set up by this Bill, particularly the Holding and Realisation Agency, will be engaged in selling off the securities of the iron and steel companies to anyone who will buy them—let us hope on suitable terms—there will be in the industry certainly a public sector and, unless the hopes of the Minister are to be completely frustrated, at any rate some private sector.
I want to see that there is a fair deal as between the public and the private sector and we have to remember that the Board themselves, though they will no doubt be composed of excellent and well-meaning people, are not yet quite known. The character of the Board will have to depend to some extent on the very functions they have to perform, and it is all the more essential that those should not be left to the better judgment of the Board, or to some vague phrase of that sort, but that it should be stated quite clearly in the Bill that a fair deal is required.
I have given the instance of a fair deal between the public and private sectors of the industry. Perhaps that is the most obvious example. There is another situation which will continue, even if the Government and the organs which are established under the Bill succeed in disposing of the whole or virtually the whole of the iron and steel industry back to private hands. This is an industry which to varying degrees has large vertical concerns—and by "vertical concerns" I do not necessarily mean concerns which are capable of standing up, because some of these concerns have not always been very good at that; but I mean vertical in the sense that they run from the earliest raw material through the various stages to the completely finished article.
If the industry were entirely composed of equal vertical concerns, the point which I am about to mention need not bother us so much, but, in practice, we find that some concerns run right from the raw material to the finished product, others stop halfway and others begin halfway. The point which I have in mind affects the position of the concern which begins halfway.
Let me take one instance. I do not claim for a moment to be an expert in this industry—I have no more than a general knowledge of it—but one instance which occurs to me is that of wire which is, I suppose, a halfway product towards wire netting and things of that sort—all the products which are used so widely and are of considerable importance to agriculture. I understand that there are some concerns which stop at the wire itself and others which go right on to the wire netting or whatever the final product made with the wire may be. I understand, too, that there has been some discussion and difference of opinion——

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is it not a fact that wire is not contained in or referred to in any part of the Bill?

Mr. Mitchison: I should have thought that wire made out of steel was an iron and steel product. It does not matter for my purpose, however, whether we take the example of wire or of anything else. I took an instance. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) or the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister take another example, that does not matter. This is a question of principle. The position is perfectly plain.

There are some concerns which go halfway towards the finished product, others which begin halfway towards the finished product and others, again, which carry on all the processes right from the raw material to the finished product.
What we want to ensure is that the concern which carries its operations right through from the raw material to the finished product does not, by virtue of so doing, get an undue and unfair preference over those other concerns which, as it were, come in halfway, and take a product from halfway through to the complete stage. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should be at all touchy on this matter. Indeed, I hope the intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was an isolated instance. Surely we are all concerned to see that there should be an equitable distribution of these iron and steel products at every stage. It is obvious that if one concern carries through all the stages of manufacture, it is in a position to give itself, or perhaps one of its subsidiaries, a preference in the distribution of the semi-finished article which may be both inequitable and most inadvisable in the national interest.
I hope that the Minister will feel with me that in a matter of this sort, in defining the paramount duty of the Board, to leave out all mention of distribution, equitable or otherwise, is to put on the Board a wholly artificial field of review and to prevent them, if they keep strictly to that limitation, from doing what we mean them to do—review the iron and steel industry in the national interest, including, of course, the interests of both producer and consumer. I will not go as far as the Co-operative movement, which is reported to have brought out a journal called "The Producer" with which is incorporated "The Consumer." That would perhaps be a little artificial in this trade, but it is clear that any comprehensive review of the industry will be quite impossible if it is confined to supply and if distribution is omitted. Obviously, distribution must be equitable.
I commend these simple words to the Minister and I hope he will accept them as one of the obvious improvements in the Bill which are so frequently contributed by the Opposition and, I am bound to say, so frequently accepted afterwards by the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that he sometimes takes a little time about


it, and if he wants to think this Amendment over we should have no objection provided that he accepted the principle.

Mr. Jack Jones: I beg to second the Amendment.
What we seek to do is very simple—to make sure that the consumers of steel get a fair and equitable share of the steel products of the country. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has suggested that they can well look after themselves, but they would have been in a sorry mess in the last 10 years if they had been left to look after themselves without a scheme of equitable distribution and licensing. We should have had the little men having to go without supplies, which would throw their work people out of employment.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage conditions of scarcity in steel supplies and the need for rationing and allocation systems for ever? Is that his belief?

Mr. Jones: One never can tell. My father, who was in the industry before me, never envisaged that there would be scarcity in the last 10 years, but there has been scarcity and there is scarcity today.

Mr. Nabarro: There was a war.

Mr. Jones: Of course there was a war, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster has no right to assume that he can dictate whether or not there will be another war. If it were left to him to decide whether there should be a political war, there would be one in the House every afternoon. We will leave it at that.
I suggest that the Minister can easily accept the Amendment. We are simple people on this side of the House and what we have in mind here is the idea of making certain that, in the event of war or extraordinary circumstances, an equitable amount of steel will continue to be supplied to those who need it. I know of firms in this country who have extremely big interests in finished products. Take Dorman Long, for instance. That great firm in Middlesbrough may receive a huge order for the erection of a bridge, as they have in the past and as, I hope, they will in the future, and if that big firm had a big demand thrown upon their own rolling and production resources, they could easily look after their own

those consumers who, in normal times, receive a fair amount of sectional steel from Dorman Long.
Take the case of the Manchester Steel Corporation, for whom I had the privilege and honour to work for over 30 years. They make about one-third of the country's supply of wire—and I hope the hon. Member for Kidderminster will not again try to suggest that wire is not steel and is not included in the Bill. Any steel which is reduced in its cross-section by rolling or re-rolling, by hot or cold methods, is in the Schedule. Wire is produced that way, and if the hon. Member for Kidderminster is trying to make me think that it is not, I will show him 3,000 tons a week being made near where I live.
Supposing that firm had a time of boom and peak demand for wire netting, pit ropes and other wire products, they could easily forget, for the time being, the interests of persons upon whose demand they rely in normal times. We suggest that the persons to whom we turn in normal times should be looked after in the abnormal periods.
4.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) knows something about wire in its billet form before it is turned into wire by the firm with which he is acquainted. He knows that there are times when the people so engaged are driven into seeking billets abroad because of the abnormal demand throughout the world. We suggest that firms of that description should have a continuance of distribution of the resources available in this country. That is all we ask today—that the little man should have at all times a fair share.
All we are asking is that the Board, among their multifarious duties, should see that there is equitable distribution of the steel, no more and no less. That is a very simple and decent thing to do. The party opposite claim to be the party of the little businessman, but apparently they are in difficulty in getting a provision in the Bill which will give that assurance to the small businessman.
We also have in mind the public utilities. It is no good, in war-time, making shell steel without, at the same time, being able to ensure that British Railways get the steel for the tracks on which to


carry those shells. They need practically the same kind of steel, high manganese steel. We also have to ensure that the National Coal Board have steel for mine arches in order to get the coal on which we depend. Without this provision they might be denied the right to get those mine arches. It is no use putting all our steel into manganese steel for tank tracks if we do not also see that the farming community get sufficient steel for tractors. We are asking for fair shares for all—our election pledge—including fair shares of steel.

Mr. Nabarro: I hope that my right hon. Friend will oppose this Amendment and that the House will decisively reject it. There is nothing odious or prejudicial to the public interest in the process of vertical combination in industry. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to find something immoral in the process of a primary producer arranging through a suitable firm of distributors or stockists to sell his particular products or in the purpose of a vertical combination of a primary producer using a manufacturing business which is a subsidiary or allied in some other way to the primary producing business, as an outlet for the sales of steel products or manufactured goods.
I cannot believe that anything connected with equitable distribution could conflict with vertical combination; the two things are entirely separate and different. The hon. and learned Member referred to it as a process of vertical arrangements, but no doubt he meant combination. In our long industrial history it has often been proved that costs can be reduced, distribution can be improved and a better service can be given to the consumer by that very process of vertical combination.

Mr. Mitchison: I never accuse anyone, not even a vertical trust, nor the hon. Member, of immorality. I merely ask for equitable distribution.

Mr. Nabarro: If the case of the hon. and learned Member rested only on equitable distribution there was no need for him to introduce the question of vertical arrangements in industry.
Let us come back to the crux of the question. I believe that the gulf between us is exactly the same as that which was

between us a few weeks ago on the question of consumers' consultative councils for the steel industry. Hon. Members opposite envisaged that forever and a day we must have restrictionism and rationing of steel and steel products.
I and other hon. Members on this side of the House believe that we are moving into a period when the supply of steel and steel products will at least equal demand, if it will not exceed it. The indication, as each month passes and steel production steadily increases, is that, with the notable exception of one or two specialised products such as plates for shipbuilding and sheets for motorcar bodies, and so on, there will be a matching, a balance, between the supply of steel products and the demand for them. In those circumstances, we shall probably re-enter what in pre-war days we were pleased to call a free market. In a free market there is no need at all to have statutory control or limitation over the distribution of steel and steel products. [Laughter.]
The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) laughs. Has he never used the services of a steel stockist, a steel merchant, a steel distributor or a factor such as have been created in many different forms up and down the country precisely to serve the small businesses to which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) referred? It is those stockists, factors, distributors and merchants who, in a free market, afford a ready and efficient service to consumers of steel in industry and those firms which are not sufficiently large to buy their steel supplies direct from the manufacturers.
There might be a case in time of continuing shortage, if indeed there is any period of such shortage still remaining, for a steel allocation scheme to be continued. If that case were made out it would be the duty of the Minister of Supply to operate the scheme. It should not be the duty of the Board to operate it. Hon. Members opposite are suggesting that duties at present vested in the Minister in the steel allocation scheme should, in future, be delegated to the Board themselves——

Mr. Mitchison: No.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Member says "No." His Amendment


seeks to insert the words, "and the equitable distribution." He seeks to make that one of the functions of the Iron and Steel Board; there cannot be any doubt about that.

Mr. Mitchison: With respect, I must teach the hon. Member a little grammar. "Equitable distribution" are, respectively, an adjective and a noun and the verb is "supervise."

Mr. Nabarro: But there is no mention of the word "supervise." The Amendment is to insert after the word "conditions" the words, "and the equitable distribution." That is the function of the Board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] The title of the Clause is:
Supervision of iron and steel industry by Board.
What hon. Members opposite are seeking to do is to make the Board responsible for a function which is currently vested in the Minister of Supply. For all these reasons I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise the fact that we are moving into a free market and into a period when supply will match demand for steel and steel products—that we are moving towards our Conservative goal of freedom in distribution of iron and steel and that this Amendment is, therefore, rendered wholly unnecessary.

Mr. Eric Johnson: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) alluded to a firm of which I have some knowledge. I do not think I need to declare an interest, because I am not a director. It is true that rod rollers, in particular, are very uneasy about the supplies of their raw material. I think it right for me to say that the billets supply position has not improved since the industry was nationalised. Whether the supply came from abroad or elsewhere it was easier before the war.
We feel serious concern about this matter which applies not only to the smaller firms who operate through a merchant, but to the larger firms who buy steel in considerable quantities. Such firms welcome the Bill, particularly Clauses 3 and 4. I hope my right hon. Friend will assure the House that the point raised in this Amendment is met so far as supplies are concerned by

the words, "adequate supplies" in line 41 of the Clause, and that on those grounds the Amendment is unnecessary.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seemed to indicate that the word "supply" as it is used in Clause 3 was ambiguous. As a result of this debate it is apparent that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the word "distribution" as well. At an earlier stage we discussed the word "supply." During our debate on marketing arrangements I pointed out that the word meant not only production but also sale and marketing.
In so far as the word "distribution" may be intended to cover the selling and marketing of iron and steel products, we are advised that all the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) are covered by the Bill as at present drafted. The Board's duty already extends to the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products under competitive conditions and, therefore, covers their distribution by the industry. The Board will be concerned with the general marketing arrangements of the industry to small, large and medium-sized consumers. If there are restrictive agreements or practices in operation, whereby producers discriminate unfairly against consumers, the Board would take note of them and use their influence to bring them to an end. In the last resort they would report to the Minister.
4.15 p.m.
I gather from what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, and even more so from the remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherham, that what they were driving at was allocation in times of shortage—which is quite a different matter from distribution. We have quite deliberately, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), not included those matters in the duties of the Board. In our opinion, responsibility for allocation in times of shortage is a matter for the Government who alone are qualified to judge between the conflicting claims of various iron and steel using industries.
Hon. Members opposite referred from time to time to distribution being in the national interest. But the House will have clearly in mind the difference we have drawn between the responsibilities of the Board under the Bill and the responsibilities of the Government. My right hon. Friend has on a number of occasions indicated that the national interest is the responsibility of the Government, and so is the allocation of iron and steel products in times of shortage.
I have little to add to what was said on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. But I would refer to one point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, who talked of a fair deal between the public and the private sector of industry in what he called the transitional period. I think that what he meant was a fair deal in raw materials. I cannot think he meant in finished iron and steel. Though we should be wrong to assume there will always be a shortage of iron and steel, in so far as we are referring to finished steel, that is a matter for the Government. The raw materials aspect is covered by the present Clause 10: the hon. and learned Member will recall our discussion in Committee on the Amendment to insert similar words when I pointed out that in our opinion the words "satisfactory arrangement" covered all those matters.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with what I tried hard to make clear; that is, the question of the supply of products half-way down the chain. I was not talking about raw materials or finished products, but things half-way from the raw material to the finished product. May I also ask him to tell me—if "supply" includes production, or, at any rate, some production—why it is that the word "equitable" is not put before "supply"?

Mr. Low: I will deal with the last question first, because I was coming to the point about "equitable."
The duties of the Board which cover efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions surely extend to seeing that the distribution is efficient, economic and competitive; which amounts to seeing that the consumer has the choice of buying what he

wants. That covers the idea behind the use of the word "equitable" by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If what he wants to see is the pattern of the distribution of iron and steel on this particular day frozen once and for all—I cannot believe that is what he is attempting to say—he will want something else. But I think he will be satisfied if the supply is adequate and about that I can satisfy him. It is only when there is a shortage that the danger of inequity or unfairness arises.

Mr. John Hynd: Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe) rose——

Mr. Low: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to finish this part of my argument. The hon. Member for Rotherham is agreeing with me at the moment. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) does not agree, but I should like to finish the argument.
In times of shortage the national interest may require allocation in a way which is not equitable. For example, the allocation schemes that the right hon. Gentleman administered, and even the scheme which is in operation now, could be said to be inequitable between one man and another if we consider merely the interests of the individual. Allocation in the national interest is not necessarily equitable. In our opinion the word "equitable" would not be rightly introduced into a Clause like this even if we intended that the Board should be responsible for allocation. We think that responsibility for allocation in time of shortage is for the Government and not for the Board.

Mr. Hynd: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean to say that when supplies are adequate distribution must necessarily be equitable? Does he not know that in industry there are restrictive practices and that there have been restrictive practices in the iron and steel industry? Does he not know that there have been boycotts of certain firms in connection with certain material and that such an instance was referred to in the House today in reference to another industry?

Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten something I have said earlier. I said that as the Bill is now drafted if there are restrictive agreements


or practices in operation whereby producers discriminate unfairly against one or more consumers, the Board should use their influence to bring them to an end. If need be in the last resort they should report to the Minister so that action may be taken under other legislation, under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act.
My explanation has been rather diffuse owing to the number of points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that I have covered all the arguments. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) in his short but relevant speech on a special problem which concerns a firm about which he knows. If there is an adequate supply, the problem raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering will not arise.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We do not propose to divide the House on this Amendment, as we are short of time. We are not in any way satisfied with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. On this occasion his answer was less precise and, to use a word which he used himself, more diffuse than usual. He realised that the answer he gave was most unsatisfactory and that we have a strong case.
The hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), who has practical experience, appreciated that we were talking about something of great importance. We are surprised that the Government have refused to accept this Amendment, which would have had the effect of helping the small men against the big concerns, those primary producers who have their own subsidiaries and which take up all the semi-finished products temporarily in short supply.
The hon. Gentleman's answer was divided into two parts. He said that our point was covered because the words "adequate supply" mean equitable distribution. We do not agree. There may be adequate supply of certain products, but to suggest that the Board will regard it as a duty to see that they are equitably distributed is another matter. If the Government have in mind the desirability of giving to the Board some authority for seeing that there shall be fair distribution of the products and semi-finished

products between the various claimants that should be stated clearly in the Bill.
Then the Parliamentary Secretary came to the other leg of his argument, where he was on very weak ground. He said that if there was a shortage it was the duty of the Government to allocate. He said it must be the duty of the Government and not of the Board. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that there may be two types of shortage. There may be an overall shortage, in which case the Government would introduce an allocation scheme. But there may be a shortage which would not justify the introduction of an allocation scheme with all the difficulties, troubles, worries and red tape that inevitably go with it. There may be a shortage of certain products only. When that happened, as it did frequently before the allocation scheme came into operation, the old Forbes Board, if they had a complaint from an independent producer or consumer of a product, ensured that those interested got fair shares.
For instance, the producers of wire—and there are only a few—should not hog the whole lot for themselves for use in their subsidiaries. It was the duty of the Forbes Board to ensure fair shares and to see that wire went to the independents. I see no reason why the
Government should say that that duty should not go to this new Board. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that when I introduced the 1949 Bill the Conservative Opposition urged that there should be special provision to ensure that the products of the industry were equitably distributed and that the independent producer should get his fair share. I accepted an Amendment to provide that the Corporation should ensure equitable distribution of iron and steel products. That was done to protect the independent producer outside the Corporation. That provision was put in at the suggestion of the Conservative Party.
We say that a similar provision should be inserted in this Bill to protect the independent producer. We are surprised that the Government have not taken the opportunity to give to the Board this responsibility, the need for which may never arise. But knowing how unpredictable the future is and how iron and steel products can become short at any time, we thought that such a provision


was necessary. We regret that the Government are unwilling to accept our Amendment.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: The Parliamentary Secretary gave a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) which, though I do not think he intended it, was misleading and unsatisfactory. He said that if there were restrictive practices the Minister could take action through the Monopolies Commission. But that is quite useless in this sense. Apart from the fact that the Commission can have a long inquiry, they can do nothing more than report on the result of the inquiry. They can take no action whatever. As far as I can see, the only effective step which could be taken would be through some Bill which would have to be presented to Parliament. Therefore, the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfactory. The action he mentioned would merely result in delay and would be ineffectual.

Amendment negatived.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John Freeman: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Minister may at any time give to the Board any such directions as to the performance of their duty under the preceding subsection as he shall think fit in the national interest.
The effect of this Amendment is to provide that at the end of the first subsection of Clause 3, which lays down the general duties of the Board, the Minister shall have the power to give the Board directions in the national interest. This Amendment, in exactly the same form, was discussed in Committee, and I take it that the reason for reverting at a later stage to a matter which has already been discussed is that the Opposition either consider the matter to be one of some certain importance or that it is desirable to revert to the matter once again after the Opposition have had time to consider the arguments which the Government adduced at an earlier stage. In this case, both those arguments apply.
This is an Amendment of great importance and of principle. It is also an Amendment which it is desirable the House should look at again in the light of the arguments which hon. Members

opposite brought to bear during the Committee stage. Clause 3 establishes the general duties of the Iron and Steel Board, and very vague they are. The expressions used are "exercise a general supervision," "in particular to keep under review," and so on. Apart from certain specific tasks which are laid on the Board by other Clauses of this Bill, Clause 3 (1) relates to the whole of the duty which is placed on the Board. The Board do not really exist apart from this subsection and apart from the three Clauses 5, 7 and 10, which lay upon them certain narrowly defined specific duties.
Clause 5 relates to the matter of sanctioning additional production facilities, Clause 7 to the matter of price fixing, and Clause 10 to the power to import raw materials. Those three Clauses place duties upon this Board but they define them with absolute precision and within narrow limits. Apart from those three Clauses, Clause 3 (1) is the whole stuff and substance of this Board.
We are asking that the Minister should give to the Board directions in the national interest. We on this side of the House have never concealed—I myself stated it specifically on the Second Reading of the Bill—that we consider this Clause, and indeed the Iron and Steel Bill as a conception, to be little more than a sham. Our suspicions in that direction are confirmed by the way in which the Government, both in Committee and, so far, on Report, have treated a series of Amendments designed to strengthen Clause 3 and to give some effective teeth to the Board.
The last time we discussed the Bill we dealt with the addition to this Clause of the duty of the Board to control these matters instead of merely to supervise them. The attitude of the Government in inviting the hon. Members to reject that Amendment went some way to confirm us in our view that this is all a deliberate put-up job to deceive the public about the nature of this Bill and the competence of the Board which it is setting up. It may be said—and I do not deny it—that to erect that superstructure of argument on the foundation that the Government have given us unsound reasoning. If that is said, at least the matter can be put to the test here.
This is an Amendment the acceptance or rejection of which, I submit, precisely puts to the test the question whether or not the Government mean anything by Clause 3. It surely cannot be denied that the field within which the Board are to operate under Clause 3 is one which touches the public interest. Let any hon. Member who doubts that look at what the Board are asked in general terms to supervise and keep under review in Clause 3 (1). It goes right to the heart of public interest where the steel industry is concerned.
We have already been told by the Government again and again, and even this afternoon by implication on the last Amendment, that they themselves must be the judge of the public interest; that the public interest can, in fact, only be determined by the Government. Where does that take us? Surely it means this: either the Board—which, if they are to operate within the terms of Clause 3 at all, must be touching the public interest—does not operate, or else the Government must be in a position to determine what the public interest is so far as the Board's operations under Clause 3 are concerned. That means that the Government must have the power of direction. I submit that that is sound logic, and it is an absolutely precise test.
If Clause 3 means anything at all, if the Government's assertion that they must be the judge of the public interest means anything at all, the Government must have the power of direction over the general duties of the Board as set out in Clause 3. At present, if this Amendment is not accepted, apart from the special powers which the Board derives from the other three Clauses to which I have already referred, the Board exist in a vacuum. They cannot impose their purpose on the industry and the Minister, on the other hand, cannot direct their course.
We are asked to suppose, both in the arguments at the Dispatch Box and in public propaganda from the Central Office, that this is making industry publicly answerable. Can the Minister be surprised that we reply by saying that it is nothing but a sham? The arguments which, at an earlier stage of the Bill, were brought against an Amendment in this sense are worth looking at.

Owing, I suppose, to the pressure of time, only two hon. Members opposite addressed themselves to this question; but I do not think we need assume that the Opposition's case was in any way weakened by that, because the two hon. Members concerned were the Minister himself and the commissar from Steel House who sits behind him, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). I reckon that if we hear those two Members we hear the substance of the case which the steel interests are trying to develop against our Amendment.
Let us look at what they said. The hon. Member for Hall Green developed three points only. He said, first of all, that direction is not necessary because advice is enough. I quote his words:
It is my experience that when a Minister gives guidance of this kind to an industry, and not only to the iron and steel industry but to all industries, that guidance is heeded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1323.]
That is not a particularly well formulated argument, because it confuses the fact that what we are asking for here is the power of the Minister to direct the Board and not the power of the Board to direct the industry. But in so far as that argument has any validity, it simply is not true.
Any hon. Member who has exercised Ministerial responsibilities knows perfectly well that on some occasions requests and advice are certainly not enough, and there may indeed well be valid reasons why they are not enough. I suppose that the present Minister of Supply may be able to furnish examples—certainly some of his colleagues in the present Government will be able to do so—where public authorities have specifically asked Ministers to issue a form of direction to cover them on some subject where there is some question of their answerability, arising either from public opinion or statute. This power to direct on the part of the Minister is absolutely essential to the efficient administration of this kind of public authority.
Secondly, the hon. Member produced the argument that Ministers might be subject to political pressure. I will not quote his words, because he probably remembers the argument, but he said that, therefore, it is undesirable that Ministers should have power to direct. That is, of course, true, but one of the things which


distinguishes a Minister from many other institutions of society is that he is subject to public control, and that is exactly what we are asking for this Board. The Minister is answerable to the House, and, therefore, to public opinion, and we in this House can keep a check on whether or not a Minister abuses his powers.
It is perfectly true that an irresponsible Corporation—irresponsible in the sense that it is not answerable to the public in any way—is not subject to quite the same kind of political pressure as a Minister, but it can indeed—and the hon. Member for Hall Green knows it well—practise and perpetuate incompetent and self-seeking neglect of the public interest and nepotism almost entirely undetected, because it is not at any point answerable to the public.
Finally, the hon. Member cited as an example of the sort of political pressure which might be brought to bear on a Minister who had power of direction the case of wage increases followed by price increases. He suggested that pressure might be brought to bear on the Minister, first of all, to authorise wage increases, and then to direct a price increase as a consequence. That is a singularly inept example of the sort of danger which might arise from accepting an Amendment of this kind, because price-fixing, which is dealt with in another Clause, is one of the few subjects on which the Minister virtually has power of direction even under this Bill.
When the Minister came to address his argument to the rejection of this Amendment, in his engaging manner, for which we have been grateful on a number of occasions and by which we have been frustrated on even more, he wandered amiably and said that the Board would welcome guidance, but the only new thing he added was the remark that he feared that he would be unable to recruit proper membership to the Board if he, as Minister, held this power. His words on this subject, and I think they are worth quoting, were as follows:
People are not going to devote their time to being members of a Board with very great responsibilities knowing that after they have considered a problem carefully and conscientiously the Government can step in at any moment and tell them how to do the job. People who are going to become members of a Board of this kind want to know where they stand from the start, what are to be their

responsibilities and what measure of freedom they are to be given to carry them out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1325.]
That is the only argument of any substance or cogency whatever that the Minister addressed against this Amendment at an earlier stage, and what does that argument amount to? It is utter nonsense. In the first place, there are plenty of occasions on which boards have asked for this power to direct to be in Ministerial hands and on which they have invited directions on specific subjects to protect themselves. Secondly, let us look at the composition of the boards of the nationalised industries. Hon. Members opposite dislike this structure, but does any responsible member of the Government Front Bench really suggest that either they themselves or their predecessors have been unable to recruit the sort of people they would want to occupy the high positions on these boards because the power of direction remains with the Minister?
I know very well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), whom I served in the last Government, had some difficulty at one stage in recruiting a Steel Board, but it was not for that reason. The hon. Member for Hall Green can tell the House what the reason was, but it was nothing to do with directions given by the Minister. In any case, I have not observed in recent years a notable apathy in members of the Forces in taking high jobs because of the fact that there is an even higher authority resting in Downing Street which might frustrate their intentions from time to time.
4.45 p.m.
There is not a single argument against this Amendment except, possibly, the vague assertion, which, in any case, we do not accept, that the Amendment is not necessary. The arguments for it are overwhelming. Unless the Minister does have this power, then, in my submission, it can be categorically stated that Clause 3 is a sham and means just nothing at all, that, in fact, the Board will never be able to perform any of the functions listed in Clause 3, and that their powers are solely limited to the powers which are set out in Clauses 5, 7 and 10 of the Bill, in each of which the Minister virtually has a power of direction.
In each of these Clauses, the power of direction which the Minister is given is a power of particular direction, and the real substance of this Amendment is that, to match the broad outline of the Board's responsibilities which is set out in Clause 3, the Minister should have a power of permissive general direction which he will use only at his discretion and for which he would remain answerable to the House. The fact that all these specific powers of the Board which come in the later Clauses are given one way or another subject to Ministerial direction is the real proof of what I am saying; they show that there is no objection in principle to direction.
It is very tempting for hon. Members opposite to base their case on the undesirability of any form of Ministerial directions, but that case is disproved by the provisions of Clauses 5, 7 and 10, and the only reason for rejecting this Amendment must be an abjection to Ministerial and Parliamentary control over the matters outlined in the Clause. I want to conclude by quoting a few words from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said at an earlier stage, because it really is important that the Minister should not be able to ride away in urging the rejection of this Amendment on the suggestion that we are advocating an unduly restrictive approach and an attempt to limit the freedom of the new Board.
It simply is not so, but let my right hon. Friend, who was speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the Opposition, put the case in his own words. He said this:
We have never proposed or suggested that the Minister should interfere in day-to-day transactions, or anything of that sort. It is for the Minister himself to decide when he should interfere and when Parliament will want him to interfere. He can be certain that if he interferes unnecessarily Parliament will tell him he has done the wrong thing. Under our scheme we said there should be direct control and Parliamentary responsibility for the broad outline of the industry; that if anything went wrong, if there was insufficient production, general inefficiency, or if amalgamations did not take place which ought to take place, the matter should be discussed in Parliament; that the Minister should be questioned and give an answer, and if necessary, on behalf of Parliament, see that the desires of Parliament were carried out."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1328.]

That is what we are inviting the House to do and what this new Board should also accept as part of their responsibilities.
What happened before? This industry, for many years, has behaved without social responsibility, like a rogue elephant. After the war, public opinion made up its mind that that state of affairs was to be ended, along with the underhand contacts between the leaders of the industry and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Its terms, if I may paraphrase them, are something like this, "We recognise that you are now in a political difficulty owing to our past failures. If you would undertake to make certain that we are left free agents we, in return, will undertake to steer clear of the gravest excesses of the past."
Out of that compact has arisen a whole new line of Tory propaganda seeking to pretend that this industry ought in some vague way to be answerable to public control, but taking very good care that at each stage such control shall be ineffectual. It is to put an end to that state of affairs that we move this Amendment, and, whether or not the Minister accepts it, we shall expose once for all if there is any truth in the suggestion of the underhand deal which I have put forward.

Mr. George Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman), who always speaks with great fluency and usually with great conviction, did not on this occasion give the impression that he was deeply convinced by the case he was making. But be that as it may, he said that if the Government are to be the judge of the public interest they must have power of direction. I do not dispute that, provided that those powers of direction are precisely related to the functions of the Board under the Bill. However, I would point out to hon. Members opposite that in this Amendment they are asking for much more sweeping powers than they thought it right to give to the Government under the 1949 Act in relation to a State owned industry.
It seems to me that where we have an industry which is owned by the State and


where only public money is involved, we should be entitled to give the Government more direct powers of control and intervention than in the case of an industry which is privately owned and which is being run with private money. The 1949 Act gave the Minister no general power to direct the Corporation to carry out particular development schemes; it gave the Government no power to override the Corporation in respect of prices and no power to direct the Corporation to import finished steel or to keep in production works which were going to be dosed down.
This Amendment proposes that the Minister should be given an unlimited right of interference in the affairs and responsibilities of the Iron and Steel Board. I can think of nothing that is better calculated to diminish the influence and to undermine the authority of the Board than that. We recognise that in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary in the national interest for the Government to intervene. The difference between us is that the Opposition want to give the Minister a kind of rover ticket to interfere when and where he feels inclined. We, on the other hand, prefer to give the Minister powers which are limited to what is necessary, and powers, above all, which are clearly defined in the Bill.
I do not see that there is any sham about our proposals just because we think it better that the powers given to the Minister should be defined instead of being left vague, as is suggested in the Amendment—powers which, as I have said, were never given to the Minister in the 1949 Act. The Opposition seem to deduce from this that the Government are paying no regard to the national interest in all these matters. That is not only untrue, but it is not borne out by the Bill itself.
As I see it, the principal national interest is that the industry should be efficiently run. We believe that the Board are better qualified to ensure that the industry is efficiently run than is any Government Department in Whitehall. However, we recognise that there are wider aspects of the national interest which it is the responsibility of the Government to safeguard, and we have, in consequence, provided specific reserve powers for this precise purpose.
Apart from the efficiency of the industry, there are three matters connected with it which vitally affect the national interest. The first is prices. Under Clause 9, as the hon. Member for Watford has pointed out, the Government are given a complete overriding power to direct the Board in regard to the prices to be fixed. As I have said before, I hope that this power will not often have to be used, but there is no doubt that it exists. Therefore, I submit that the Opposition can have no possible complaint in regard to the Government's powers in respect of prices.
The second matter which vitally affects the national interest is the adequacy of steel supplies. Not only have we given the Government the power to supplement the output of the industry by setting up and running steel works themselves either directly or through an agency, but we have also under Clause 10 given them the power to direct the Board to import additional supplies of finished steel. Thus the Government have power under the Bill to ensure that prices are reasonable and that supplies of iron and steel are adequate.
There remains the third vital matter—development. In our opinion, development plans should be based on technical and industrial considerations. However, the Amendment which I offered as a bouquet to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) at the end of our last debate, in page 5, line 29, provides that the Board, in their consultations with the industry under Clause 4 on development plans, shall
… have regard to any considerations relating to employment in Great Britain or otherwise relating to the national interest to which the Minister may have asked them to have regard.
In other words, the Minister is empowered to draw the attention of the Board to matters which affect the national interest outside their sphere of responsibility, and to ask them, without prejudice to their general responsibility for the efficiency of the industry, to take those considerations into account.
5.0 p.m.
In this way the Minister will be able to exercise a considerable influence over the Board in relation to development plans; but if persuasion should prove to be insufficient there remain in reserve important statutory powers by means of


which the Government can control development. Under the Town and Country Planning Acts the Government are able to control the location of industry which, as mentioned in earlier debates, can be important in regard to employment. In addition, so long as it is necessary to control capital investment, the Government have the power to do so through the licensing of building work.
Thus, I submit to the House that on all the main issues which affect the national interest—prices, supplies of iron and steel, and development plans—the Government possess effective powers, either by instructing the Board or by other means, to safeguard the national interest. I ask hon. Members to consider seriously what I have said and I hope that in the light of this explanation they will not find it necessary to press this Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Minister is quite right when he says that our Amendment throws up the difference in outlook between the two sides of the House on the measure of control and Parliamentary supervision which there should be over the iron and steel industry. He did not say it in those words perhaps. I paraphrase and, if I may say so, put it rather better than he did. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest it, then I suggest it. The Amendment shows what our outlook is on the amount of Parliamentary supervision that there should be over the industry, and the Minister's reply has shown the entirely different outlook of the Conservative Party.
I suggest to the Minister that he really misled the House when he suggested that in our nationalisation Act we did not give the Minister much authority over the industry. That is not true. First of all, we set up a body to own about 97 per cent. of the basic production of this industry. The duty of that body was to look after the public interest and the consumer, and not the interest of the iron and steel industry. Secondly, under our Act the Minister had general powers of direction over the Corporation. Thirdly, the Minister could give specific direction on any matter which any consumer brought to the consumers' council—any complaint about price, delivery, quality

or anything else. The Minister could then give specific instructions to the Corporation and they had to carry them out. Under our nationalisation Act the Minister of Supply had full Governmental authority over the Corporation and the industry.

Mr. Sandys: Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the powers which would be given to the Minister if this Amendment were adopted are far more sweeping than anything which he provided in the 1949 Act. Does he not agree, for instance, that there is no power under the 1949 Act for the Minister to direct the Corporation to keep works going, to direct the Corporation to import finished steel, and so on?

Mr. Strauss: I am not sure. The right hon. Gentleman could argue that in some matters the powers which the Minister had under our Act were much greater than the powers which we are now suggesting. In other matters he could argue that what we are now seeking to achieve by our Amendment would give the Minister wider powers.

Mr. Sandys: Unlimited powers.

Mr. Strauss: We say that the Minister requires wider powers when the industry is in the hands of this body. We take the view that this industry, for reasons which we have argued many times, is so important to the national interest that its general welfare and its efficient and proper running are matters far wider than those which the Minister mentioned. The industry should be under the direct control and be the direct responsibility of the Minister of Supply who is in turn responsible to Parliament.
The Minister has given a list of matters in which he can interfere. He can fix the maximum price; the Board can veto development, and, in certain circumstances, the Board can advise the Minister to carry out such development himself. But the Minister himself told us that those circumstances are most unlikely to arise. In my view, it is almost impossible for a Conservative Government to carry out development if Steel House does not want it carried out.
All sorts of very wide duties are placed on the Board under Clause 3. They must look after the efficiency of the industry


and see that an economic and adequate supply of iron and steel is provided. But if they want to look after the general efficiency of the industry the Board are given no powers, or quite inadequate powers to do so. We say that on essential matters of that kind Parliament and the Minister must have some responsibility. If the pledge of the Government is to be relevant that this industry must be under general public supervision—and some Ministers have used the words "under Government supervision"—then this Amendment must be accepted. If it were accepted and made effective we would not have much quarrel with the Bill.
There is practically no public or Governmental supervision under this Bill as it stands. We ask that the Board with the limited powers but wide functions

which they are given should be subject to Ministerial direction so that we can question the Minister about these matters and so that, if necessary, he should be able to give general instructions to the Board to carry out what Parliament requires and believes to be in the public interest.

That is the essential difference between us. It is because we feel so keenly that Parliamentary supervision over the industry should be effectively maintained, through the Minister of Supply, that we hold this Amendment to be of first-class importance and feel bound to divide the House upon it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 254.

Division No. 118.]
AYES
[5.10 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Deer, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Adams, Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Albu, A. H.
Donnelly, D. L.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Edelman, M.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Fredrick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Baird, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Keenan, W.


Balfour, A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Kenyon, C.


Bartley, P.
Fienburgh, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Finch, H. J.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bence, C. R.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kinley, J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Follick, M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Benson, G.
Foot, M. M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Beswick, F.
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, Arthur


Bing, G. H. C.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lindgren, G. S.


Blackburn, F.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacColl, J. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McGhee, H. G.


Boardman, H.
Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Glanville, James
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bowden, H. W.
Gooch, E. G.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P C
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Messer, F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mitchison, G. R


Carmichael, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Monslow, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.


Champion, A. J.
Hargreaves, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.


Coldrick, W.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moyle, A.


Collick, P. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hobson, C. R.
Murray, J. D.


Cove, W. G.
Holman, P.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.


Daines, P.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Padley, W. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Palmer, A. M. F.




Pannell, Charles
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Viant, S. P.


Parker, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wallace, H. W.


Paton, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Watkins, T. E.


Pearson, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Peart, T. F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Snow, J. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Poole, C. C.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
West, D. G.


Porter, G.
Steele, T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Proctor, W. T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Pryde, D. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wigg, George


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Reeves, J.
Swingler, S. T.
Willey, F. T.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, V. F.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Ross, William
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)



Royle, C
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Timmons, J.
Mr. Hannan and


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Tomney, F.
Mr. Arthur Allen.


Short, E. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Deedes, W. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Alport, C. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jennings, R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Drewe, C.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Arbuthnot, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kaberry, D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fell, A.
Lambton, Viscount


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Banks, Col. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Leather, E. H. C.


Barber, Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Fort, R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Baxter, A. B.
Foster, John
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Linstead, H. N.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Godber, J. B.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Birch, Nigel
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Longden, Gilbert


Bishop, F. P.
Gough, C. F. H.
Low, A. R. W.


Black, C. W.
Gower, H. R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Boothby, R. J. G
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bassom, A. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Grimond, J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McAdden, S. J.


Braine, B. R.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McCallum, Major D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harden, J. R. E.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McKibbin, A. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullard, D. G.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Campbell, Sir David
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Carr, Robert
Hay, John
Macpherson, Nigel (Dumfries)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Channon, H.
Heath, Edward
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Markham, Major S. F.



Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, A. E.


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Colegate, W. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Maudling, R.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Horobin, I. M.
Mellor, Sir John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, A. H. E.


Crouch, R. F.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, A. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.







Nicholls, Harmar
Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Russell, R. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Tilney, John


Nugent, G. R. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Oakshott, H. D.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Turton, R. H.


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Scott, R. Donald
Vane, W. M. F.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wade, D. W.


Osborne, C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Spearman, A. C. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Speir, R. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pickthorn, K. W. M
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Pitman, I. J.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wellwood, W.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Profumo, J. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Sr. Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Storey, S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wills, G.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Renton, D. L. M.
Studholme, H. G.
Wood, Hon. R.


Roberts, Peter (Healey)
Summers, G. S.
York, C.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold



Robson-Brown, W.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Teeling, W.
Mr. Redmayne and




Mr. Richard Thompson.

Clause 4.—(PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES.)

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the promotion of the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products, the Board shall, in their consultations under the preceding subsection, have regard to any considerations relating to employment in Great Britain or otherwise relating to the national interest to which the Minister may have asked them to have regard.
The Amendment has a background and it would be useful if I explain quite shortly why we have thought it right to come to the House to ask for the insertion of these words. During the Committee stage we discussed an Amendment about full employment in relation to Clause 5. All of us want provision to be made for full employment. Full employment is the Government's aim and is not in issue between us. It was not in issue when we discussed the Amendment in Committee, but there was a fairly wide discussion and a number of differing views were expressed by hon. Members opposite.
I explained at that time that we wished as much as anybody else to see the maintenance of full employment, but that in our view full employment was a national responsibility which the Government sought to maintain through their general economic policy. I also explained that the Government had effective power over the location of industry by means

of the industrial development procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I further explained that in our view the best contribution that the Board could make to full employment would be to be successful in helping the iron and steel industry to produce efficiently sufficient of its products at prices that were competitive in world markets.
As I have said, a number of differing views were expressed from the other side in Committee, but I think that the official Opposition view was put by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), when he said:
We ask that this Board, which have to make important decisions which may affect employment in many parts of the country, should be permitted to take into account that factor before coming to a decision.
That is, the employment factor.
They should have in their minds the effect which such decisions would have on employment. The Government's answer is that they should not have that consideration in mind at all.
I do not believe that that was our answer, and it certainly was not our intention. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
We look on that as a monstrous decision on the part of the Government. We say that this should not be the over-riding consideration, but one which it would be right for them to have in mind. But the Parliamentary Secretary says that they are not to have it in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 660.]


Once again, I never said anything of the sort. It was never our intention to prevent the Board having these considerations in mind. I was arguing then about the criteria that the Board should apply in deciding whether to give their consent to a development proposal.
It is along the lines of those words from the right hon. Gentleman that we have been considering whether the Board ought to be asked in the Bill to take account of employment considerations and of other considerations of national interest in consulting with iron and steel producers about their development proposals, particularly in the formative stage, which is the stage envisaged by subsection (1) of the Clause.
When I say "along these lines" I refer particularly to the end of the quotation which I have read from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, without overriding the other considerations of
efficient, economic and adequate supply
which must be paramount in the mind of the Board.
At that formative stage of a development proposal, the proposal will not have been submitted for anyone's consent and no application will have been made for an industrial development certificate. It therefore seemed to us, after consideration, to be right that the Board should be asked in their consultations to have regard to employment considerations. They will, of course, have some knowledge themselves of employment considerations, but they will not have full knowledge of all the employment considerations. That knowledge lies within the province of the Government. The Amendment, therefore, refers expressly to employment considerations
to which the Minister may have asked them to have regard.
Other things being equal, we think that the Board should, and would, just as industry would—as several of my hon. Friends have said in earlier debates—have full regard to employment considerations. In the same way the Amendment makes it clear that the Board, and through them the industry, will have regard to other considerations of national interest which are put to the Board by the Minister.
If the House, in considering the Amendment, bears in mind also our

Amendment to Clause 14 about closures and our Amendment to Clause 15 regarding publication of the Board's report relating to development, it will be seen that, quite apart from the frequent informal consultations that there will be between the Government and the Board, and between the Board and the industry, there is ample opportunity for full consideration by all concerned of the very real human problems that may arise in the course of the development of this great industry; and for full consideration of any opportunity that may present itself for the industry to help in alleviating any local employment difficulties. At the same time it is made absolutely clear that there is ample opportunity for the Board and the industry to give full consideration to any points relating to the national interest which the Minister may bring to their notice and to which he may request them to have regard.
Without the addition of these words, the Minister would have brought such matters to the attention of the Board, who would have given them their attention and would have brought them to the attention of the industry. Since, however, some doubt was expressed during the Committee stage, it seemed to us right to remove that doubt. Indeed, this has been our policy throughout the various stages of the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: It will not have escaped the notice of the House that we on this side had tabled our own Amendment on this important subject of full employment. We have not pressed it—indeed, we have withdrawn it from the Order Paper—in view of the Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has moved on behalf of the Government.
Remembering the debates that we had on this subject during the Committee stage, I listened with some surprise when the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was never the intention of the Government that the Board should not take employment questions into account. If that was not their intention, all I can say is that it sounded very much like it. Many of the speeches made during the Committee stage from the Government side should be re-made now in the light of the statement—the apology, I think—which we have just had from the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary, and for that matter the


Minister also, rather remind me of Byron's celebrated lady who
… repented,
And whispering 'I will ne'er consent'—consented.
That is really what has happened here.
5.30 p.m.
The Government said, in Committee, that it was impossible to insert words of this kind, that there were substantial objections against doing so and there would be confusion and misunderstanding, and difficulties about definition. I remember those arguments all too well. If the Amendment is something for grace, we are glad about it. We like its principle, of course—we think it is only because of our pressure that it has appeared on the Paper; but we do not like particularly its wording. The Amendment begins:
Without prejudice to the promotion of the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products"…
Whoever suggested that full employment could contradict the meaning of the beginning of that sentence? I suggest that the Amendment would be tremendously strengthened if these first words were left out altogether. No doubt they can be omitted when the Bill in due course reaches another place.
Those who have studied the wording of the Amendment will, I think, agree that the rest of the wording is extraordinarily clumsy and could be vastly improved. Nevertheless, we are glad to confess that the Amendment concedes our main point: that industry today has something more than a financial obligation to its shareholders. It has a social and human obligation to the community and particularly to the workpeople employed in it.
In the context of the Bill, and of the industry whose affairs we are discussing, it is important, especially in relation to the present Clause, that those responsible should take into account not only efficiency, economy and the quantity or quality of the material stuff that is used and produced by the industry but the immaterial aspect also—that is the security of the men who serve the industry and of their families.
In reminding the House of some of the arguments that were used against our earlier Amendments in Committee, which demanded that employment should be

one of the factors to be taken into consideration by the industry in deciding its policy, I am perhaps at the same time reminding a wider audience outside also. One of the arguments then used by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the Board should not be asked to carry out a full employment policy because that was something for the Government of the day and was not a matter for a Control Board of this kind. That however has now been contradicted by the present Amendment and we are glad of the change.
It was also objected from the benches opposite—by, I think, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), who is not now in his place—that employment and full employment could not be successfully defined. That was an extraordinary comment upon a Bill which already contains wide expressions such as "competitive conditions," "adequate supply" and "substantial extent," to name only one or two. Something has now been done which denies to a great extent the facile objection.
We on this side congratulate the Minister, who has succeeded in jumping over obstacles which were created by his own imagination at a previous stage of the Bill. Even though the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in that, I am certain that his Amendment would never have been before us at all but for the pressure put upon the Government from this side to make it one of the social and human obligations of the iron and steel industry to take into account full employment policy.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) might have been somewhat more magnanimous about this Amendment. Hon. Members will recall that in Committee hon. and right hon. Members opposite made some somewhat harsh and rather sweeping statements about the Government's intention to deal with this problem. Indeed, they went so far as to say the Government had no desire to include some protective provision of this nature. They implied the Minister was not prepared to do anything, if I recall rightly. I think the fact that this subsection is included in this way shows how completely wrong those innuendoes were.
The new Amendment sets out the considerations which the Board will have to


apply, and puts them in their proper position and true perspective. It recognises, what the Opposition Amendments did not; that there must be other considerations, too; but it also recognises that the Board have the duty of taking some note of employment conditions either locally or nationally. I think it is important to have at the beginning the words that the hon. Member for Cleveland wanted to leave out, because they bring it clearly to the Board's attention that this is not their only problem. It shows equally clearly that the major responsibility for employment problems must be the Government's, and that the Board's responsibility will be a limited one in a limited field. I think that this is a valuable addition to the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend c., introducing it.

Mr. Walter Monslow: I welcome this Amendment, and I do so because I regard it as one to deal with one of the most important aspects of the Bill, and that is the human aspect. But I hope that the Amendment is moved in the spirit the Parliamentary Secretary intended—that we are to maintain a measure of full employment. I hope that we are not going to have only the expression of sentiments and no positive action taken, if the need should arise, by the Government, even if it should mean that they are in conflict with the Board, to achieve the desired result, namely, full employment.
In my opinion an industry such as this, which does and will reflect prosperity, can embrace within its ambit even what are known at the moment as certain uneconomic units; and I suggest that whoever may be in charge of the future administration of the industry should have some regard, not only to the monetary aspect of the problem but also to the social implications which arise in connection with those uneconomic units. I would ask the Board when examining this aspect, to recognise these considerations.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) for the excellent work which they did in connection with works within my own constituency in the lifetime of the last

Government. When we made representations to them they certainly did everything that was humanly possible to keep going the works which were on the point of closing—which would have closed had it not been for the last war. I pay my tribute to them now, and I ask them to accept it from me in the spirit in which it is given.
I sincerely hope that whatever happens in the change over the question of full employment will be kept to the forefront. I am not unmindful of the difficulties. We have experienced them in my own constituency. I respectfully commend to the Government and to the new Board that they give some consideration to making what are known as uneconomic units economic units by seeing that they receive a further measure of capital investment, so that they may have the required economic strength to play their part in an industry on whose prosperity that of the country largely depends.

Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) went right to the kernel of the matter when he said that this was a question affecting human values. So did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer). It is for that reason I rise to support the Amendment, and to pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary on the way in which he presented it to us. His was a full, lucid and effective statement, and the most important one that he has made during the whole of this debate.
There is no question, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, about our having had in mind all the time the impact of the Bill, and of the powers of the Minister and of the Board, upon the men and women working in the industry as being of the greatest and most vital importance. Therefore, I am particularly glad the Opposition dropped their Amendment using the expression "full employment." I should like to concur in the observations made by the hon. Member for Cleveland. Throughout our debates his contributions have been made with great sincerity. At no other time did he touch the feelings of us on this side of the House as he did today when he spoke of the importance of the men and women in the industry and the necessity attaching to their employment in the industry.
We in this House can talk about employment being secured to them, and the like, but that employment is their very life—the most important thing in life for them. That was why I said in a previous debate on this matter that it is a dangerous thing to put into the minds of the men any idea that by any Act of Parliament or any act of the Minister or of the Board we could guarantee the continuance of full employment. I do not think that the Bill of 1947 of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) ever used the expression "full employment." That showed that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realised that it would not be guaranteed by a Parliamentary Bill, nor could it be introduced into a Bill to any good effect.
What is important, above all, is a satisfactory and high level of employment. That clearly depends on three interlocking factors. The first factor is efficiency within the steel industry itself. The Minister himself referred to it today. Efficiency depends on three things—the quality of the plant, of the management, and of the men. Those are three interlocking factors that control the efficiency of the industry. The second factor relating to employment is the general level of trade in this country, which does and will largely decide the general level of employment within the steel industry. The third element is the general level of world trade and our ability to obtain a fair share of the world demand for steel.
What I am saying is simple economics, but it has to be stated categorically, in a positive fashion, none the less. We have to obtain a fair share of the world demand for steel. Moreover, British manufacturers who are consumers of our steel, and for whom steel is a raw material in making their products in engineering, etc., must also obtain a fair share. Those are the three factors interlocking one with the other, and they control employment inside the steel industry.
5.45 p.m.
It is as well to emphasise that the steel industry now has to meet an impact of world competition such as it has not experienced for a number of years. It is only now that we are having to face world competition. The testing time has come, and I believe that healthy competition—and I use the word "healthy"

in its true and proper sense—is a good thing for industry and is a guarantee of that efficiency with which we are all concerned. I believe that British steel can look forward confidently to meeting world competition and to being able to hold and to extend its fair share of world trade, because with few exceptions our plant is good. Beyond question, our management is first-class, and, equally vital, our steel workers, judged by the standards of loyalty, skill and good will, are second to none in the world.
I reiterate the three great, important, vital requisites of efficiency in industry: quality of plant, quality of management, and quality of the men. It will be the prime function of the Board to consider efficiency in all its aspects—their first duty all the time. If they do their job effectively the industry will have every right to expect reasonable prosperity and, as a consequence, it should be able to maintain a satisfactory and high level of employment, which is the aim of all of us in this House.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I intervene only very shortly to join in the general congratulatory amity of the House at the present moment, and to say that I should have thought that, in view of the experience between 1945 and 1951, full employment was a matter now that could have concrete, specific definition; but be that as it may, I appeal to the Minister to take the opportunity of looking again at this point to see whether it can be further clarified.
We have gone a long way to meet the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, he is a good Parliamentarian. By that I mean that, while he is out of touch with enlightened thought and progressive political ideas in this country, he is not at all immune to discussion in the House. He saw our Amendment down, and he endeavoured, I think I may say, very much to meet it, and I think he has gone a long way to meet us. I should like him to go further. This discussion should really be taken with the previous one. The difference between us is how far the concept of public supervision should be brought within the affairs of this industry. We differ about that, but, allowing for that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman could come nearer to meeting us.
I intervene mainly because this is a matter which causes very real apprehension even today in my part of the world. I have only to say that Jarrow is only a few miles from my constituency for hon. Members to understand what I mean. There is still a good deal of apprehension about the reorganisation, the re-deployment, of the major industries of this country throughout what are, not by chance, called the Development Areas of the country. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary that when recently we had a debate on full employment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour specifically referred to the White Paper of 1944. Let us refer back to that White Paper—that great White Paper.
It emphasised above everything else the need for the country to deal with the problem of full employment, and that we had got to see that considerations of capital investment were subjected to that objective. That is the real keynote of that White Paper, and capital investment is, therefore, in the forefront as the major way in which we can offset the threat of a depression. Both sides of the House will agree that this country can survive economically only on the basis of full employment.
We are all very proud of the Welfare State. The Welfare State can only be underpinned by full employment. That is what we all desire. I think that it is right and proper, if we are to have a supervisory Board, to provide that full employment should be a major, primary consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that that is his objective, and I should like him to express it a little more clearly.
I think that this Amendment, good as it is, is expressed in rather a cagey way, as though the Government do not want to be pinned down. [Interruption.] There may be a difference of opinion between us, but I would argue that this is a primary national consideration, and it may well arise—although I hope we shall not be threatened with depressions—that the first consideration in the national economic plan is the maintenance of full employment. I would rather that were stated in the Amendment, if it could be done.
All I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he has the opportunity of further considering this matter, is to go a little further to meet the wishes of both sides of the House that we should have a clearer expression of view that the Government accept this principle of the White Paper of 1944.

Mrs. Eirene White: Having moved the original Amendment, to which this Amendment is in a sense a reply, I was a little surprised to find this one on the Order Paper. When one recalls the tenor of the debate on the last occasion, one had no indication then that the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to put down any such Amendment.
I do not wish to strain such classical knowledge as the right hon. Gentleman may have brought with him from Eton, but he may remember a passage in Virgil where it was suggested that when the Trojan Horse is offered by the Greeks, one should be on one's guard against this bringing of gifts to one's hands. The Minister has been extremely accommodating—it may be his Parliamentary technique, as was suggested—and perhaps one should be on one's guard when he has been so extremely pleasant in meeting the suggestions of the Opposition. We hope that the country will not have any false impression from the relatively friendly manner in which our debates on this Bill are being conducted.
I should like to turn for a moment to the Amendment as proposed. I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) that it is a most inelegant Amendment. I am certain that the drafting of it could be improved, perhaps in another place. On a point of substance, I cannot feel that the first phrase of the Amendment is really one which can be upheld in logic. To say:
without prejudice to the promotion of the efficiency, economic and adequate supply of iron steel products, the Board shall … have regard to any considerations …
really does not make sense, because the whole argument we have been putting forward is that, while the Board should have regard to the efficiency of the industry, they should also have regard to other matters.
It may be that the other matters, when taken into account, will be to some extent—and are very likely to be to some


extent—prejudicial to the absolute efficiency of the industry. Therefore, I would suggest that this Amendment would be very much more effective if that first phrase were omitted and the Amendment then stated that the board "shall in their consultations," etc. It has been suggested, for example, in the "Economist," which I think had a very tendentious paragraph on our last debate, that those of us on this side of the House who proposed and supported the original Amendment were suggesting that full employment should be the only consideration in the mind of the Board.
None of us had any such idea. All that we suggested was that it should be one of the considerations. Naturally, efficiency is also a major consideration. We are very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to meet us so far as he has done. We shall never agree on whether "full employment" or "a high and stable level of employment" is the proper phraseology, but, so far as it goes, the Amendment on the Order Paper does refute the suggestion made in our previous debate that any reference to employment in a Bill of this kind would be out of place.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I do not wish to throw any cold water on this Amendment, which I welcome, nor do I wish to go into the motives which led the Government to put it down. I rather suspect that they were political more than anything else, to forestall any attack made upon them in the country on this matter. I want to warn the Government against too easy an acceptance of that position, because the implications of the Amendment at a time like the present, of full employment and of large-scale investment, are very different from the implications of such an Amendment in a different climate of opinion, when a slump is already coming about, and when it is not so easy for the industry to be a profitable one.
It seems to me that this Amendment may at the moment be meaningless, and that the Government may be concerned to put it in as a nice piece of window-dressing. When it comes to the time when it is necessary for the State to intervene actively in giving an investment lead in order to maintain full employment, this Amendment may be very dangerous to

the party opposite, although we shall welcome it. The steel industry, and the national investment involved in it, will be a most effective national instrument for the planning of full employment, but it may have to take on the use of controls and the things which go with them.
Therefore, I would say that, when the time comes, there will be all kinds of reasons put forward to prove that this Amendment really does not mean what we think it means now, and I should like the Amendment to be strengthened by having some sort of safeguard in it to make the Minister come along and say what directions, advice or instructions he has given which the Board should bear in mind with regard to employment. On the other hand, the Board should be made to state in their annual report, or in some other way, what advice they have given to the Minister, how they have followed out his instructions and what kind of response there has been to the suggestions by the industries concerned. I think that we need more than the words of this Amendment to make it a full force in the planning of the full employment which we all desire.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, at the end, to insert:
Provided that under this subsection the Minister may compulsorily acquire or compulsorily take or lease facilities and in such a case the compensation or rent to be paid by the Minister shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration.
I think that the purpose of this Amendment is very clear. It echoes very closely a similar Amendment which was moved during the Committee stage of the Bill. The Minister of Supply has already this afternoon drawn attention to the fact that he has—and he stresses them very strongly—at least some powers under this Bill.
Our general impression was that he had not enough powers, and our general demand has been to increase his powers, but he has this afternoon decided that he has at least some powers—over price determination and over development. Included in his power over development is his power to acquire plant which might otherwise go out of production, but which in the national interest it is essential should remain in production. Our only


difficulty about this power, of which he is so proud, is that, as provided at the moment, it is entirely clouded in dubiety and difficulty, because he can make such an acquisition only if there is a volun-agreement between himself and the owners of the plant. In this Amendment we seek to strengthen that power by giving him the power compulsorily to acquire the plant concerned.
6.0 p.m.
I am delighted to see here the Solicitor-General, who replied to our Amendment on the Committee stage. I am always glad to see him. One is not so certain when he comes to the Dispatch Box whether the Government Front Bench are equally glad to see him; there is then a certain frisson, a certain tension in their attitude, for they are wondering whether he will put his foot in it again, and they are hoping desperately that on that occasion he will not.
In his reply to our Amendment during the Committee stage, the Solicitor-General treated us to some three columns of speech, of which some two and a half columns were entirely irrelevant to the main substance of our argument. He indulged in some legalistic hair-splitting about whether the powers should reside with the Board or the Minister, forgetting that the issue arose owing to the unwisdom of the House in rejecting Amendments which we had moved previously. However, within his three columns he presented us with eight lines of argument related to the subject under discussion. As they are so important and as they are embedded in the irrelevancy, it is worth while extracting them so that we may proceed to deal with them. He said:
I should have thought that it was extremely improbable, and so improbable as to render it unnecessary to take compulsory powers, that any company would act like a dog in the manger and not realise some cash value for the premises or the production facilities which they were going to put out of use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 517.]
We can imagine several circumstances in which they may adopt this dog-in-the-manger attitude. Therefore, if we can impress upon the Solicitor-General that such occasions may arise, no doubt he will be prepared to eat the words he then uttered and accept this Amendment.
Here is the situation which will face the Minister of Supply when he comes to use one of the rare powers which he has given himself. He may only use the power of acquisition when it is in the national interest that he should so do. So, first of all, the company which he seeks voluntarily to acquire, or whose plant he seeks to acquire, will know straight away that he has some compelling reason for his approach. It will not be that he merely wants to add another series of production facilities to an already overburdened responsibility. We do not envisage that the present Minister of Supply, or any Minister of Supply in the present Government, will dash willy-nilly into the acquisition of private companies; he will only do it when compelled to do so by the most cogent reasons in the national interest, or when he is subjected locally to some heavy degree of political pressure to keep in operation some plant which might otherwise go out of operation.
This will not be undertaken lightly. That would be quite clear to the people owning the assets. If he refuses our Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman will, in effect, have created a seller's market against himself. If the reasons for acquisition are so compelling that even an apathetic Conservative Government is provoked into the breaking of all it tenets of private ownership, that will not escape the knowledge of those who own the assets, and it is quite likely that they will stand out for a higher price than they could otherwise get.
It may well be that no price which the Minister is prepared to offer will tempt a concern to part with its plant. There can be two reasons for this. First, the concern may have an alternative and more profitable use for the site. We have to remember that many of the older steelworks sited in towns which have subsequently grown have a considerable site value, particularly now that the Government have taken away the development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act. I do not stress the point too strongly, but it is well within the bounds of possibility that a firm may choose to use the site for other purposes than the production of iron and steel and that offers made to them for such a purpose may be much more tempting than any the Minister of Supply could


make. It may be that in those circumstances no price will persuade them to relinquish their concern so that it could continue, in the national interest, to function producing steel.
Secondly, it may be that they will refuse any offer because, owing to some internal arrangement within the steel industry, they have decided that the plant shall go out of production anyway. It may be that through reorganisation within the steel industry they have decided to restrict production or to concentrate production elsewhere and no offer which the Minister can make will outweigh the financial advantage to be gained by losing the production of that plant altogether. Unless the Minister accepts the Amendment, he is without power compulsorily to acquire such plants in the national interest.
We ought to pay more attention to precedent, especially when the precedent is bolstered by the fact that it was introduced by a Conservative, or predominantly Conservative, Administration. The Defence Regulations during the war entrenched the power to acquire firms in the national interest, and the power so entrenched was compulsory. There was no talk about a voluntary relinquishment. Indeed, the one concern which was taken over, and it stands out in all our minds—Short Brothers—was certainly not handed over voluntarily. The litigation arising from that transaction is probably still going on, or, if it is not, it has only just stopped after all these years.
If it was right then for a predominantly Conservative House of Commons to decide that the powers of acquisition should be compulsory in the national interest, surely it is right now. However, Conservatives are not noticeably attached to precedent when the precedent argues against the expediency which they are advocating at any one point in time. Nevertheless, we must remember that in this we are the custodians of public money, and if we are seeking to acquire plant in the national interest, it is right that we should seek the best possible circumstances in which to make the bargain.
I urge the Government to apply to this matter the standards which, as individual businessmen, they would apply to the acquisition of any firm which they sought to take over. It is not unknown in

private competitive capitalism for one firm to seek to take over another firm. But it does not create a seller's market against itself as its first instance of approach. Instead, it evinces an ostentatious unconcern about the firm which it wishes to take over so that the price may be better than if it came forward and said, "We must, in our own pecuniary interest, acquire your firm. Give us a price and an offer." If those standards are proper to the conduct of private business, we contend that they are proper to the conduct of public business.
If the Government seek to make an acquisition only in extreme national interest, that will be well known to those whose property the Government seek to acquire, and that concern will, fairly naturally, hold out for the highest possible price. We contend that the Minister should arm himself with the power of compulsory acquisition, so that if no agreed price is reached, a price is then adjudicated by arbitration. We find nothing strange in this; we find precedent for it; above all, we ask that the standards applicable to the conduct of private business by private businessmen should in this case be applied to the conduct of public business by what will, after all, be public businessmen in the industry.

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) began his speech by saying that this Amendment echoed a similar Amendment we discussed in Committee. I entirely agree with him and, of the two speeches made in moving these Amendments, I must confess that I thought the speech of the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) by far the more persuasive, convincing and, indeed, eloquent. The hon. Member for Islington, North commenced as though to be offensive was a satisfactory substitute for argument. He went on to make a few arguments with which I shall endeavour to deal, but I feel that I shall not satisfy him. I am not sufficiently optimistic for that, and I cannot do much more than echo the arguments that were advanced on the previous occasion.
The hon. Member complained that, in dealing with this point in Committee, my


arguments occupied only eight lines in HANSARD. He will realise we were then considering an Amendment somewhat different in form, and I think I did, quite properly, draw attention to the fact that there was apparently a defect in form on that occasion. I will not go into that now, but I will come to the substance of the case that he endeavoured to put forward. The House will realise that my right hon. Friend, or any Minister of Supply, before he can exercise the power given by this subsection to acquire or take or lease or otherwise secure the use of existing production facilities has got to satisfy himself that those production facilities ought to be kept in use in the national interest, and also that they will not be kept in use unless he exercises those powers.
Production facilities are defined in the Bill as plant, premises and machinery. We have to consider this very carefully. In our view, if those production facilities are not going to be kept in use—and it is upon that that the operation of this subsection depends—then it is highly improbable that the owner of those facilities, which he does not intend to use, will not be willing either to sell or at any rate, to lease them for a period of time. We regard that as so improbable as to show that there is no need for the powers of compulsory acquisition such as the hon. Member suggests.
We take the view that powers of compulsory acquisition should not be conferred on the Minister unless the need for them is clearly established. The hon. Member has made it quite clear by his speech that he does not agree. Hon. Members opposite seem to take the view that compulsory powers of acquisition should be given to meet the slightest possibility arising for their need in the future. The hon. Member, in moving this Amendment, said that he could imagine many circumstances in which the need for those powers would arise. I confess that my imagination cannot be as good as his. He has talked of cases of the Minister wanting to acquire. That may well be, but I am sure he does not think it really likely that persons who are not intending to use their production facilities will want to go on hanging on to them and not derive some capital by selling them or some income by leasing them.
6.15 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), speaking on the previous occasion in support of this Amendment, advanced as an argument what he himself said was an extreme situation. I quote from HANSARD:
To take an extreme situation as an illustration, there may be works which are doing well, but in which the facilities are being only half-used; they may not be very efficient or may be badly run."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 518.]
I should have thought it was rather surprising to find works in those circumstances doing well, but if they are only using half of their works when doing that, I should have thought it was extremely likely that the other half would be brought into use fairly speedily, in which case there would be no need for the Minister to seek to exercise these powers.
This argument is advanced that we must have compulsory powers of acquisition in case we come up against a person who is not prepared to sell at the price that we are prepared to offer. It may be that his view of the proper price is the right one and that ours is the wrong one, and it by no means follows that, if we have the power of compulsory acquisition, we will be able in the long run to acquire the lot cheaper than the price at which we originally offered. That may or may not turn out to be the case, but what is quite obvious from the hon. Member's speech is that he wants the Government to be supported by the power of compulsory acquisition so that that power can be used as a lever to apply pressure upon the person who has the production facilities, which are not going to be kept in use, to make that person agree to accept the offer made to him.
Views may differ as to whether that is the right use of compulsory acquisition. All I can say in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North and to his hon. Friends is that the Defence Regulations in wartime do not constitute any precedent whatever. We are not at war now, and so far as this Bill is concerned, in our view, the need for compulsory powers in this subsection does not exist and the case for them has not been established. Therefore, we can adopt no different attitude to the attitude we adopted when this was last before the Committee.

Mr. Fienburgh: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, perhaps I could ask for clarification on this one point. We have certainly not suggested that the power of compulsory acquisition should stand as a lever whereby the Minister can secure at his own takeover price. He has ignored the last phrase of the Amendment, which says:
… in such a case the compensation or rent to be paid by the Minister shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration.
Arbitration, if it means anything, will not be effected in any way by any lever which may reside in the Minister's hands. In fact, the only use to which a lever and the power of acquisition can be put is largely that of seeing that too high a price is not paid—higher than that which subsequently may emerge from arbitration. Surely the insertion of the word "arbitration" protects the seller completely.

The Solicitor-General: The short answer to that is the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North in moving this Amendment. He indicated, as I think HANSARD will reveal, that the power of compulsory acquisition could be of use as a threat, in the first place against the person who was going to be asked to sell, and was to be held over him. I fully appreciate that there is a provision for arbitration. And it was in that connection that I made my remarks that, when you have had arbitration, it may be found that the price which is to be paid is a price at which the vendor was willing originally to sell.

Mr. Willey: The Solicitor-General's case, as I understand, is that the circumstances in which such a Clause as this might be useful are so rare as to make the legislaton not worth while. I wonder whether he has forgotten what happened to the major industry in my constituency. I refer to the shipbuilding industry. We had premises which were left unused for years. They were sterilised, and they remain sterilised today. One of them was the most up-to-date and modern shipyard on the Wear. It is still not a shipyard, and it could not return to shipbuilding. Another yard which was used during the war and which had a tremendous amount of capital put into it also once again became sterilised. That is an example of a great industry where premises remain unused, and it is conceiv-

able that similar circumstances might arise—I hope not—in the great iron and steel industry.

The Solicitor-General: I can only speak again with the leave of the House, to say that it is only in circumstances where production facilities are not used that the powers of the subsection will arise at all.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We are not satisfied with the reply given by the Solicitor-General. I do not think he is surprised, because he realises the force of the arguments that were put forward in the moving of the Amendment. We are not dividing the House on it, but I want to make it clear that our decision has nothing to do with any willingness to accept the Government's answer, which we think was not an answer at all. It is merely because we are worried about the passage of time.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5.—(PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES TO BE SUBJECT TO BOARD'S CONSENT IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Mr. D. L. Mort: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, after "Britain," to insert:
or to cease or substantially to diminish the use of any production facilities in Great Britain.

Mr. Speaker: If it is agreeable to the House, I would permit discussion on this Amendment to range over the Amendments on the Paper to page 6, line 36, page 7, line 13 and the Minister's Amendment to Clause 14, page 14, line 27, because they all cover the same subject matter.

Mr. Mort: We are obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that arrangement, which is very convenient and we are quite prepared for the subject to be covered in the way you suggest.
The reason I was chosen to move the Amendment is that we want to pinpoint the powers which the Minister has in a certain direction. In moving an earlier Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was possible for the Board to deal with great human problems. I want to draw attention to a serious and grave human problem and to suggest that the Minister has power invested in him to deal with it. I refer to the problem of the tinplate trade, which has been mentioned before in these debates. I want to convey


to the House the anguish and mental disturbance that now exists over a large area from Port Talbot to Kidwelly.
I speak with all sincerity, and I wish I had the eloquence and the ability to convey the feelings of the men among whom I move and know. I want to express their fears, and to say how delighted we should be if, in the reply to this Amendment, the iron curtain could be drawn aside a little to give them a little hope. When people lose hope, they lose everything. We want the Minister to use his powers to insulate the workers in this district from the worst blast of the economic storm which affects not only men in South Wales, but throughout the country. It is like a mammoth, treading the earth and seeking whom it might devour. We are entitled to ask the Minister to exercise the powers with which he is invested in the Bill and to make a public declaration that he is ready to do so.

Mr. Spencer Summers: The hon. Member is making his speech with considerable understanding, but would he say what he means by "insulating" the workers from the economic blizzard?

Mr. Mort: I will refer to some of the insulations that I suggest. One is that the Minister should use his powers to keep intact the areas that have grown around a few small works. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) is aware how these industries have grown up in South Wales. I have seen them grow. Now we have communities with four tinplate works, two steel works and an iron works. They all started in a small way. Who were the shareholders? The local butcher and grocer, yes, and the Baptist minister. A number of these areas are facing absolute poverty because their only industries are closing down.
The insulation I want is for the Minister to exercise his powers to save some of those industries in order to maintain the life of the small communities. One illustration is that of the tinplate hand mill, which is going. There is no salvation for it, but we must remember that many steel works catered for the tinplate mills in the manufacture of tin bars. It is possible at a very low capital expenditure for those steel mills to turn out rods, sections and billets. That will insulate the people in those Welsh valleys.
6.30 p.m.
Then we have the factories themselves. Nothing gives me a greater heartache than to see the old works in which I served my apprenticeship 30 years ago now being dismantled, some of them with good suitable buildings. For instance, the Elba Tinplate Works, in Swansea, has a modern building with every facility, it has its own electricity and is near the docks. Why cannot that be converted into a small engineering shop to produce deep stamping and drop forgings?
There is a committee sitting now of which Lord Lloyd is the chairman. It is an influential committee on which are a number of important industrialists who are there to try to solve this problem. As reported in the Press, Lord Lloyd said the other day that no Government pressure would be brought to bear on industrialists to open up in South Wales, but a certain amount of persuasion would be used. I did not like reading that. I am not suggesting that the Government can act as dictators in that respect, but the Government and the House must take note of the evil sociological effects of the development of industrialisation.
I have used the following illustration before, but it illustrates what people are thinking. When I once asked an old tinplate philosopher, "What do you think of the Abbey Works, Tom?" he turned to me and said, "David, if the scaffold is made of gold and studded with diamonds, it is not much consolation if its object is to cut your head off." That is how they are thinking, because they can see there is nothing there for them. The tinplate industry is doing as much as it can under the redundancy scheme. The men who own and run the industries in South Wales are good, noble people, but it is not their job to deal absolutely with this problem and they should not be expected to do so. It is a problem for the Minister and I hope, as the result of moving this Amendment, that certain recommendations will be made and a message of hope given to what I consider to be some of the finest people in the world.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is a great privilege to support the Amendment which has been so eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). I am sure


that his words have touched the hearts and minds of all of us in this House, and I hope they will spread far wider, throughout his own area and throughout the industry. I am sure that the Minister must respond to them in the spirit with which my hon. Friend moved the Amendment.
The Board, as well as having to supervise the industry, will have to pay some regard to the national interest and, whether it is specifically stated or not, will not be able to avoid some responsibility for protecting the national interest in such cases as my hon. Friend mentioned. Under this Clause the Board can refuse consent where the proposals for development will prejudice seriously the efficient development of production facilities. Our main contention, both in Committee and at present, is that a closing down of part of a works or of a whole works is just as much a deterrent to efficient production as are schemes to promote new works or to extend existing works.
None of us wishes to stand in the way of progress and I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the last person to do that. Obviously, there are cases where, through obsolescence, and so on, works must at some time or other face the prospect of having to close down. None of us would justify a works, whether nationalised or in private hands, being carried on beyond a certain period through obsolescence. Yet we all know of cases in the past where works were closed and production was shut down for reasons other than obsolescence, and we are afraid that those conditions may easily be repeated in the not-too-distant future.
Already, we are hearing murmurings about fears of over-production. I welcomed the latest news this morning about the 18 million ingot tons of iron and steel production. I think it is a magnificent achievement, but some people may not feel quite so happy about it. I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) because he has been talking already about the dangers of over-production and of the fact that people are having to go round—"touting for orders" was his elegant phrase. We are facing the danger of a contraction of this industry not based on grounds of efficiency, but on grounds of maintaining profits at the highest possible level.

Mr. Nabarro: I have a real constituency interest in watching the production of tinplate rise as rapidly as possible. Tens of thousands of tons of good Worcestershire fruit have been wasted every year in the last few years simply because growers and processors could not get enough tinplate. I am delighted that the output is going up so fast.

Mr. Chetwynd: If that is so, I am amazed at the earlier interventions of the hon. Gentleman and I hope that at a later stage he will withdraw them.
In considering the efficient development of the industry, it seems only common sense to us that the Board should have all this information at their finger-tips at the earliest possible moment. I want to give one illustration from an incident which took place in my own constituency in the summer of 1951.
We have there an old established iron and steel works mainly working on scrap iron. The company concerned, and the Iron and Steel Corporation, made great endeavours to maintain the firm in production as long as possible, and even at the risk of starving some of the South Wales industries of scrap, it maintained its production as long as was absolutely necessary. In the end the day had to come when we could no longer expect that works to keep in production, using in an inefficient way scrap which could be better used in other parts of the industry and, indeed, in other parts of the firm's own plant about 12 miles away. I know that the closing of that works was not carried out in the best manner possible. In fact, the management gave notice to the men going on their summer holidays that they were to have a fortnight's notice and that was the end of that.
Naturally, I raised this matter with the Iron and Steel Corporation, not that we could do anything about the works in question, but to make sure that this sort of thing should not happen again. I received specific assurances from the Chairman of the Corporation that there had been an unfortunate slip and that the Corporation had been taking the most energetic measures to see that the works should be kept open as long as possible and to see that the skilled men should find alternative employment in other parts of the industry. He also gave me an assurance that this could not


happen again under a nationalised undertaking.
I took that as it came, but I want to Make sure that even under a private undertaking this kind of thing will not happen and, added to the sociological demands of my hon. Friend for the acceptance of this Amendment, that should carry some weight.
The Minister has put down an Amendment which goes some of the way to meet our points on notification. If I remember aright the Committee stage debate, the question is divided into two parts. One is whether the Board should have the right to veto a closing down, and the other concerns notification. I realise that it is almost impossible for the Government or the Board to tell a private industry to carry on when it no longer wishes to do so. With a nationalised undertaking, however, the problem is solved, because uneconomic plants can be maintained in existence if there are other good reasons for doing so, and their losses can be met from the profits of another part of the industry. Obviously, we cannot expect a private industry to operate in this way and one of the faults of denationalisation is that it makes this sort of thing impossible.
I am concerned now with notification. Although the Minister's Amendment says that firms which contemplate a closure in whole or in substantial part should give notification as early as is practicable, I do not think that it goes far enough to meet our point of view. When it has said that, that is all it says and nothing else follows. We do not know what action will follow notification. We assume that firms will give notice as early as they can, and that is the end of it. Our suggestion is that there should be a period of at least three months before a closure in whole or in part is possible, and we think that that is the least for which we can ask in these circumstances.
It is difficult to compel a firm to carry on at a loss, but every effort must be made to continue the works in being as long as possible so that other arrangements can be made under the terms of the Bill; in order that other firms which may be interested in expansion may have a chance of taking over the existing works, so that the Government themselves can carry on if they think fit or some

alternative industry may be brought in to take the place of the declining old one. We feel strongly on this matter, because we wish to protect the workers in the industry and, through them, the people who are dependent upon it for a livelihood.

Mr. Gower: I should like to add a brief comment to what has been so ably said by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). Hon. Members on this side as well as on his own side of the House will endorse much of what he said in very graphic terms of the plight of those who are, in a way, the victims of progress.
It is not always a pleasant thing to see the results of progress. In America and in the Soviet Union there are whole areas of the countryside where the remains of obsolescent plant and the relics of out-of-date industries are a rather unfortunate sign of progress. We do not, of course, want that progress to have unhappy repercussions on the lives of human beings when those repercussions can possibly be avoided. That, I think, is the case which the hon. Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) sought to establish.
The Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend seems to go a considerable way to meet the wishes of the sponsors of the Amendment from the Opposition. I cannot see that the actual terms of the first two Opposition Amendments are objectionable and I should be interested to know whether my right hon. Friend has any strong objection to them. The Ministerial Amendment, as so often happens in matters of this kind, uses the expression "works of substantial size." I appreciate that this term is frequently interpreted in courts of law, but it might be wise, possibly at a later stage, to incorporate either an interpretation Clause to give an idea of what "substantial" may mean, or to incorporate an adjective which might define the term. I do not think it would be wise to leave this matter to a possible examination of its meaning in court.
6.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East spoke of a part of the world which I know extremely well, and what he sought to establish was something with which we


can all sympathise. He would, no doubt, agree that, on the other hand, there must perhaps be some unfortunate results of industrial progress. We cannot always prevent those results, because we should be putting too heavy a burden on our productive industry, but we must do what lies within our power to minimise them.

Mr. Mitchison: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) give even qualified support to the Amendments of my hon. Friends. I point out to the hon. Member and to the House that there is a substantial difference between the effect of those Amendments and the Minister's Amendment.
The Minister's Amendment does two things. First, as the hon. Member for Barry has pointed out, it defines very roughly indeed—and I entirely agree with the hon. Member, in a very unsatisfactory way—the kind of works the closure of which will entail any obligation. The Amendment simply refers to "works of substantial size." The Government ought to be a little more careful in the use of the word "substantial." We had it on an earlier occasion from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and now we have it again.
What is a "substantial size"? Whatever it is, it will differ if steel works continue to get larger and larger, and what is substantial from the viewpoint of, say, 50 or 60 men working in an undertaking may not look as large when regarded from the centre of administration. It simply will not do to have a vague definition of that sort. We, on the contrary, by linking up the matter with the other proposals with regard to the Board's consent in Clause 5, give the Board power to determine, on the lines and subject to the provisions there laid down, the cases in which action is required. Our suggestion is more definite and, I suggest, much more sensible than the very vague language of the Minister's Amendment.
The second point is that as far as the obligation is concerned—and this, too, the hon. Member for Barry pointed out—the only obligation is that the Board shall be informed of the proposals as early as possible. These are proposals to close down large works—"works of substantial size"—proposals upon the social and economic effect of which my hon. Friends have dwelt and the seriousness of which

is emphasised by the long history of the industry and its repeated trouble in connection with the closing down of works because of what seemed to be at the time, and might well have been, sound technical reasons.
There is no industry in the country in which closures of works have led to more disastrous social consequences, whatever the economic advantages in some quarters may have been. I will not dwell on it as the House knows perfectly well the history of this matter. We know that these closings, often for perfectly good technical reasons, have been paid for, quite literally so far as the workers are concerned, by tears and suffering and, as far as the country is concerned, by unemployment, of which I believe we are all heartily ashamed. It is, therefore, no light matter that the only obligation in connection with it is to be to
inform the Board of the proposals as early as practicable.
I want to be quite fair to the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members opposite in this matter. I quite see that if we denationalise an industry and return it to private competition, by so doing we largely deprive ourselves of the power of obviating this kind of misery and unemployment. That is one of our fundamental objections to the Bill, but accepting the principles of the Bill, difficulty is found in saying to a private owner, particularly a very large private owner whom one finds principally in this industry, "You must go on running your works at a loss."
I can quite see that, and when Amendments were moved in Committee that was part of the answer given to us by the right hon. Gentleman. The rest of the answer was, "After all, there is some provision because, in Clause 4 (3), the Minister, if he thinks that existing production facilities ought to be kept in use in the national interest, may take them over or make arrangements about them." That was the main argument put up in connection with the proposal that there ought to be some power to keep work going.

Mr. Gower: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that in a State-owned industry obsolescent plants could be kept in operation indefinitely?

Mr. Mitchison: I did not suggest that. I think I would be out of order, and


certainly would be wasting the time of the House, if I went into a long discussion, but I should have thought it obvious to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the larger the unit of control the better the chances of keeping steady employment in it. I am not going further on that now and I do not ask hon. Members opposite to agree or disagree with me at this point about it, because I want to come back to the point I was making.
It was said to us, "There is power already, just for this reason and just in this kind of case, to keep a plant in operation and that power is given to the Minister in the national interest, and the national interest will, of course, include the provision of employment." But the answer to that and the answer which the Amendment in the name of the Minister is intended to meet, but does not meet, is that if we are to put the machinery into operation we must at least give the Minister time to do it.
Under the Bill as drafted one of the numerous signs of haste and uncertainty in the preparation of it was that there was no provision whatever to give the Minister even any notice of what was to happen. We were told that it would come to his notice in the ordinary course of events and so on. Now we have a provision that he is simply to have information "as early as practicable."
I suggest to the House that no one really knows what that means. In what circumstances would an owner, proposing to close down his works and put 2,000 out of work, consider it practicable to let the Minister know? Would it be when he finally made up his mind, or a little earlier? Supposing a calamity happened and the market broke, or the floods came. In those circumstances "as early as practicable" may be on the actual eve of the day.
I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee I pointed out what shocks he was subject to and, while we did not propose to provide him with smelling salts, we did what we could to save him from those shocks. We are proposing that for three months—only for three months and not necessarily for three months—the works should continue in operation. I should like hon. Members opposite to consider this. Supposing

they were going to sack a responsible officer in a large steel works. Would they really consider it decent to do so—apart from the law of the matter—with under three months' notice? I am certain they would not. The same, of course, would apply in the case of old employees.
But what we are considering is not the sacking of one employee, but whether we are to put perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 out of work. I suggest to the Minister that it is only right and equitable, in a case like that, that we should impose on the owner of that works the obligation of going on for three months, even if he does lose something by it. We have left a way out by allowing the Board to consent earlier if the Minister approves. On the other hand, we have allowed the Minister to enlarge the time in proper cases.
But the fundamental point is whether it is really right and fair that people should be allowed to close down works and throw thousands out of a job without giving three months' notice? If we are to weigh the matter in the scales of justice, is it right that we should allow the possibility of three months' loss when, in fact, the far weightier consideration in the balance is the displacement from employment and the human effects which may result and the larger effect on the national interest?
All we are asking is for three months for the Minister to make up his mind, and to make preparation for that will take time, as to exercising his powers in a proper case. All we are asking the House to do is to allow their hearts to get the better of them for a moment and to allow the weight of social considerations to balance the risk that a person or a company may have to keep on a works at a loss for three months. That would not do nearly as much harm as the alternative.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that the issue on this Amendment was whether it is right that a firm should be allowed to throw two or three thousand people out of work without three months' notice. He hoped that we would allow our hearts to guide us in this matter. I am sure that all our hearts were touched by the deeply sincere opening speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). We know the


background against which he was making that speech.
The hon. Member referred to the anxiety that is felt in South Wales today, and he referred in particular—I thought it was a most helpful and constructive suggestion—to the necessity for examining the possibility of converting some of the hand mills that were being closed to other purposes, for example engineering. Of course that is outside the scope of the iron and steel industry, and would be outside the scope of an Iron and Steel Board. The Government are concerned that all means of ensuring alternative employment shall be examined. That is a task for the new and representative committee set up under the chairmanship of Lord Lloyd. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) also spoke about the distress caused by the closing of works. He said it was difficult, under free enterprise, to prevent rapid closures but that, under nationalisation, this problem was solved. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
7.0 p.m.
This Amendment is similar to that moved by hon. Members opposite during Committee stage. It contains two proposals. The first relates to the duty of notification. The second obliges the producer not to close down his works or reduce his capacity without the consent of the Board and the Minister. I explained earlier why the Government could not accept the second proposal.

Mr. Mitchison: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find this Amendment differs from the other in that consent is deemed to be given at the end of three months. It therefore amounts to three months' notice and does not depend on the consent of the Board.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to some extent, but this Amendment does provide for the Minister or the Board requiring the works to be maintained in production even beyond the period of three months.

Mr. Mitchison: It so provides, but I suggest it is obvious that would not be done except in exceptional cases. Three months is clearly indicated as the normal time.

Mr. Sandys: I will say something about the three months' notice in a moment, but it is the same proposal with the exception referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I said during the Committee stage that it was impracticable to tell a firm to remain in production even though they were making a heavy loss, and that the effect of a veto by the Board might be to drive them into bankruptcy. This might result not only in financial difficulties for the firm, but in a heavy loss to the creditors. Who would be responsible for that? Would it be the firm, although they were maintaining production against their will? Or would the Government have to accept responsibility for discharging the debts which the company incurred when being forced to continue production while running at a loss? Those are questions which are not easy to answer.
We are all agreed on the desirability of a firm notifying the Board and the Government as quickly as possible if they intend to close down their works, or any substantial unit of production. There are two reasons for this; first that the Board and the Minister may know of the supply and unemployment problems which may arise, and secondly that the Minister may be given an opportunity to consider whether he should use his power under Clause 4 (3) to acquire the works and keep them in production. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that the Minister must be given reasonable time to make such a decision; I agree. The decision cannot be taken at a few hours' notice.
We have considered the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Bill should provide for a minimum period of notice. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees stressed the importance of that period being at least three months. I agree that is a reasonable and satisfactory time. But, in many cases, it is not practicable to insist on three months' notice. The hon. Member for Swansea, East referred to the cloud of anxiety which at present overhangs the tinplate industry in South Wales. My recent experience of that industry has strengthened my view that such a proposal is not practicable. It has long been realised that when the new continuous strip mills were set up at Trostre and Velindre, most of the old hand mills would sooner or later have


to close down. But it was not expected that these closures in the tinplate industry in that area would begin on the present scale so soon.
Only last May the Corporation assured me that the need for closing down these hand tinplate mills might not have to be faced for some years. The industry expected that the demand for tinplate of all kinds would be sufficient not only to maintain Trostre in full production but also to provide adequate employment for most of the old hand mills. It was expected last May that there would be no serious problem of redundancy until Velindre came into production in about five years' time. I am glad to see that two hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Barry) and the right hon. Gentleman, who know this area well, agree with those facts.
This is the background against which we have to consider the Amendment. Contrary to these reasonable expectations, there has been a sudden contraction of demand for tinplate. I am not speaking of all kinds of tinplate but of the lower grades—what they call wasters—made by the hand mills in South Wales. As a result, the companies concerned, with the approval of the Corporation, decided to close permanently 39 hand mills in 10 works, seven of which were closed completely.
I look at this Amendment in the light of this recent experience. I was informed in general terms of this problem on 11th December but it was not until 12th January that I received a complete list of the works which were to be closed. Notices were given to the work-people concerned on 23rd January. They took effect on 2nd February. I wish that there could have been longer notice. I said so to the Corporation and to the companies. I am not trying to make a party political point, but even under a regime of nationalisation with all the powers referred to I was not successful in doing more than obtaining some slight delay. This is not the occasion to discuss whether or not longer notice could have been given. It is certainly not my wish to criticise the action taken by the Corporation or by the companies. There were substantial reasons for their action. But it is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees

who said that nationalisation provided the complete solution to the problem of sudden closure.
The fact is that, under nationalisation, works employing about 2,300 men in one of the most difficult employment areas closed at less than one month's notice. These are the facts against which I judge the practicability of this proposal. I do not mention this in order to criticise the Corporation or the companies, but merely to explain why it is unrealistic for an Act of Parliament to provide that there must be a period of three months' notice.
7.15 p.m.
It might be said that we could substitute a shorter period, say one month. I have considered that. One month would be so much less than is desirable that, on balance, it would do more harm than good. That is why, although I am far from satisfied with it, I have been forced to fall back on this rather vague phrase, "as early as practicable." It is better to say that than to provide for an inadequate period of notice which would make everybody feel that they had done all that was necessary if they complied with it. Although it does not go as far as I should like, the Amendment in page 14, line 27, goes as far as is feasible in an Act of Parliament.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that not only did he not like the phrase "as early as practicable" but he did not like the word "substantial."

Mr. Mitchison: Not in this connection.

Mr. Sandys: I am not a lawyer, but I should like to quote to the hon. and learned Gentleman an authority which perhaps will carry weight with him. I refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) who, during one of our debates on this subject, when addressing himself to the Solicitor-General, said:
The hon. and learned Gentleman cavils at the expression 'substantial' …
the position was reversed then—
… and I agree that it might, perhaps, be improved upon.
This word, "substantial" occurred in an Amendment put forward by the party opposite.

Mr. Mitchison: It was about substantial interest, I think.

Mr. Sandys: The same argument applies. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
It is one which, as he knows, is used in the Rent Restrictions Acts. It has given rise to a certain amount of difficulty, but nevertheless it has been, broadly, an expression which the courts have found no excessive difficulty in interpreting. At any rate, we adopted it and it implies a clear conception of what we have in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1133.]
With that explanation from a former Attorney-General, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will withdraw this Amendment and that, later, they will accept the alternative Amendment to which I have referred.

Mr. Jack Jones: We realise that the right hon. Gentleman has been dealing with a sociological problem. It is difficult to find an answer which can be put into words and inserted in the Bill. I do not want to go into detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort) did that sufficiently in his eloquent speech. Our main objective is to ensure that in future the fullest possible amount of planning shall be done by the Board in an effort to obviate the evils which arise when any works are closed.
The word "substantial" does not appeal to me. If I were Bill Jones who was getting the sack next Saturday, that would be 100 per cent. substantial so far as I was concerned. If I am one of 2,000 concerned, it is just as substantial. Do not let us quibble about what it means in toto; what matters is what it means in detail to the individuals concerned.
We can sympathise to some extent with the Minister over what is happening in South Wales. We all knew for a long time that the new works at Trostre would come into operation, and we all knew that one day some men would become redundant. But it came extremely suddenly; those men felt the hammer falling when they least expected it. I accept the argument about the technical difficulties of giving three months' notice. If I were in South Wales and got three months' notice that my services would be no longer required—that is, the Parliamentary way in which they put it in any industry—I should not wait three months to find another job; I should be off.
I know that some of the companies look at the problem in that way, and say. "If we gave three months' notice we would not be able to operate the works." I recognise that that is one of the technical difficulties that arise from giving long notice. It has been argued that nationalisation does not completely obviate this difficulty, but it can go a long way towards doing so. I heard one hon. Member talking about the fat pheasants and the crows. I feel that we should take some of the fat off the pheasants, and that is the sort of thing we can do under nationalisation. The rich companies could be soaked if necessary to help obviate these difficulties. However, I do not propose to discuss that point any further.
We believe that on sociological matters—we would not agree with him so much on political matters—the Minister's interests lie with the people. It is only right to say that. I believe that as an individual—I stress the word "individual"—the interests of the workmen are very close to his heart. We do not propose to divide the House on this Amendment, but we trust that the Minister will continue to be guided by his humanitarian instincts in his relations with the Board, and that these instincts will guide the Board in their relations with the industry and the industry in its relations with the people engaged in it.

Mr. Robson Brown: I feel very strongly about this question of giving an adequate fixed period of notice to the employees, and I have sought some way in which that might be done. I believe that the Minister has given sufficient arguments to make it evident that such cannot be done. Originally, I had some sympathy with the proposed new subsection (7) in page 7, line 13, which seeks to provide a specific three months' notice. The only thing I would say against it is this. A manager should be encouraged to work the plant under his control as long as it is possible to do so, and, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has said, to give a statutory three months' notice might militate against that.
The one deciding factor in the operation of any works is the state of the order book. If the orders are not there, then with the best will in the world, no matter


what decisions are taken, the works cannot operate, and the situation might create a serious financial liability on the company. Generally speaking, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister spoke as sympathetically as he did because I know that he echoes the feelings of every hon. Member on this side of the House.

Mr. Fienburgh: We should not let such a solemn and sad occasion pass without uttering a requiem dirge for the Industrial Charter that the Conservative Party produced during their years of opposition. During those hectic years, when they sought enthusiastically with many committees, under the leadership of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to find some formula which would attract public support, they produced an Industrial Charter.
One of the most trenchant and interesting proposals in the Industrial Charter was, first of all, the suggestion that it was wicked that a man should be fired at very short notice. They went further and suggested that a man should be given the longest possible notice and that some form of Industrial Charter, like a highway code for industry, should embody this provision. This hon. Members will find embodied in that Charter. It is very sad indeed that we should be burying it so quietly, and I thought that I ought to make these few valedictory remarks on such a sad occasion.

Amendment negatived.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, at the end, to insert:
they shall state in writing to the person making the proposal, but without giving information relating to any individual business, their reasons for that refusal, and.
Perhaps it would be convenient if we discussed, at the same time, the two Amendments in line 45.
These three Amendment are intended to alter subsection (4) of Clause 5, which came in for a rather powerful attack from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). I told him of the extent to which I thought we should be able to meet the views he then put forward, and I think that these Amendments fulfil what I said on that occasion.
The Amendment I have moved meets the point which was raised, that when the Board refuse their consent to any development proposals, before the person who has applied for that consent appeals he should be informed of the reasons for the Board's refusal. It seeks to provide for that, subject to the safeguard that it does not put upon the Board the duty of disclosing to the applicant confidential information which they have received from other persons in the industry and which it would not be right for them to disclose to the applicant.

Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Amendment, he will find that that is not what it says. It is far wider than that. It says that they are not to give information relating to any individual business. It does not say a word about confidential information. If the reasons for coming to a decision necessarily involve certain information about the business, what are they to do?

The Solicitor-General: I was taking the matter shortly. Perhaps I should not have done. While I fully understand the intention of the Amendment, I was summarising it by saying that the Board should not be required to disclose information—I said "confidential"—relating to any other individual business. It may well be that that information which has come to the Board is one of the reasons for refusing an application. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that if that is the position the information could not rightly be disclosed to the unsuccessful applicant. That is the safeguard with which I was dealing, quite shortly. Subject to that exception, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will see, the Board have to state in writing to the person making the proposal their reasons for the refusal.
7.30 p.m.
The next point dealt with in Committee was that of the drafting of this subsection, which might make it appear that the Minister should consult the Board last and after he had heard anything that the applicant had to say. I think that the second Amendment, by altering that drafting, makes it quite clear that the Minister will consult the Board, but that he is by no means bound to consult either the Board or the applicant last; nor is


he limited in the number of occasions on which he can consult either of them.
The third Amendment is purely drafting, as, also, is the fourth. I hope I have explained satisfactorily what these Amendments do, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend who criticised this subsection will recognise that we have gone as far as is possible, and I think entirely, to fulfil the undertaking given on that occasion.

Mr. Mitchison: We on this side would not wish to interfere in this friendly matter between the hon. and learned Gentleman and his supporters. Indeed, we see the purpose of the Amendments, and take no objection to them, but we do not altogether like the language, and I would humbly suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he might consider whether the first Amendment is not too widely drawn. Obviously, the intention is to prevent confidential information being passed, but, as it is, there appears to be no qualification, and it seems to me that it amounts to a prohibition to pass on any information relating to any individual business. That is a very sweeping prohibition, and I believe goes further than the hon. and learned Gentleman intends. However, we shall not oppose these Amendments; we agree with them in principle, and that is our only comment on them.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) and I put down for the Committee stage the Amendments which have given rise to these Amendments, we did so because we felt that an important point of principle was at stake; namely, that where there is an appeal to a Minister by a private citizen whose ordinary civil rights have been invaded, natural justice should be done as far as he is concerned, and natural justice should also be seen to be done.
What seemed to us to be objectionable in the Clause as drafted covered two points. The first was that the appellant, as be is called, was not made aware of the case which he had to meet, and the second was that the Board, who were invading his rights, were placed in a very favourable position—an unfairly favourable position—and one that could give rise to great misunderstanding, in that the

Minister was obliged to consult the Board last before coming to his decision and always after hearing the appellant. There was a third point which we all desire to see put right, and that concerned the non-publication of the report of the civil servant whom the Minister appointed to hear the representations of the appellant.
I recognise that my hon. and learned Friend gave strong reasons during the Committee stage why he should not meet that last point; I must confess that I am disappointed that he could not do so, but I see the force of the objections. On the other hand, it would be most ungenerous not to recognise that my hon. and learned Friend has gone every bit as far as he undertook to go in Committee, and has met what we regarded as the two main and very serious objections to the Clause as it was drafted. I should like to express my thanks and those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York for the way he has met us.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Will the Solicitor-General undertake to look at the language here, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is convinced that this wording goes beyond the purpose which the learned Solicitor-General has in mind? If he will look at it again before the Bill goes to another place, we would be grateful.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, may I say that I did nod when the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was speaking, because I did not know whether I should have another opportunity of speaking. Of course, we will look at the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 45, after "writing," insert:
and shall consult with the Board.

In line 45, leave out "him," and insert "the appellant."

In page 7, line 2, leave out "after consultation with the Board."—[Mr. Sandys.]

Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, to leave out subsection (6).
The House will remember that, on the Committee stage, the Minister introduced an Amendment to add the subsection which I am now moving to delete, and


the effect of the introduction of the new subsection was to remove iron foundries from the supervision of the Board. Our Amendment seeks to give back to the Board the powers which the Minister himself originally decided that they ought to have. I know that hon. Members often speculate as to the motives which drive Ministers and Governments to change their policies after the introduction of a Bill, but, in this particular instance, there is no need for any speculation, because I think the Minister and his hon. Friends agree that he has bowed to pressure from the foundry owners. The Minister's speech in introducing subsection (6) was just about the strangest commendation of a change in a major Measure, which I have ever heard in eight years' membership of this House. He said:
Personally, I remain satisfied that the Bill, as it is now drafted,"—
that is, before the Amendment was accepted—
makes it clear that the Board is not intended to concern itself with minor schemes of this kind; … Nevertheless, there is no harm in making quite sure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 694.]
For my part, I thought that sounded like a final and very feeble rebuke to the torturers before murmuring the fatal words, "I beg to move."
My hon. Friends on this side feel some sympathy with the Minister in having to re-awaken in his breast the horrors of his extremely painful interviews with the chief inquisitor, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who, on the Committee stage, informed the world of his instruction to the Minister to cut out this nonsense about supervision over foundries. I should have thought that the hon. Member himself could have been satisfied with the great extent of his triumph which had taken place in private without publicly flaunting it in the Minister's face and subjecting him to such obvious embarrassment.
The right hon. Gentleman is indeed unfortunate in his power behind the throne. My reading of history leads me to understand that in these matters there is generally at least some compensation for the occupant of the throne. But, so far as the Minister is concerned, I find no compensation whatever. Certainly not for him the cooing blandishments of a Pompadour or a Dubarry. Fate, it

appears, has decreed that, in his case, the dulcet whisperings must give way to something which sounds more like the roar of a wild bull of the pampass than the cooing and so on which we generally associate with these delicate associations between the power behind the throne and the occupant thereof.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no harm in making quite sure, but great harm has already been done by his introduction of subsection (6). The T.U.C. is extremely alarmed about this matter, and is very much up in arms against it. It will not escape the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that the T.U.C. took such a dim view of his change of heart in the matter that they actually issued a statement on it which reads as follows:
The T.U.C. General Council express their opposition to the Amendment made by the Government to the Iron and Steel Bill to relieve foundries of the duty to submit their development schemes to the Iron and Steel Board for approval. They are opposed to this unjustifiable concession to pressure from foundry owners, and, as they have made clear to the Minister of Supply, are convinced that it is essential to give the Iron and Steel Board adequate powers to supervise foundry development. Working conditions in many foundries have for long been unsatisfactory. The General Council therefore welcomed the Government's original decision to include foundries within the supervision of the Iron and Steel Board, as this would enable the Board to exercise a general influence towards raising health, safety and welfare standards in foundries. The amendment of the Bill in this way will, in fact, leave the new Board with less power to exercise control over foundry developments than the former Board—a non-statutory body—possessed.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the members of the T.U.C. General Council are not quick to rush into print on these matters. They are men who take a sober view of these things, and I hope that when, after careful deliberation, the full weight of the General Council comes down in uncompromising opposition to his weakness in giving way to the foundry owners led, or at least spoken for, by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, the right hon. Gentleman will see that he has made a cardinal mistake and one which will rankle for long in the minds not only of the members of the General Council, but in the minds of many trade unionists associated with them and for whom they speak.
The Minister argued in that same speech that development schemes in


foundries had been small. He seemed to deduce from that fact that they were unimportant. But the smallness of a scheme is no criterion of its importance. Indeed, those of us who have had some dealings with industry generally and with foundries in particular know perfectly well that there is no single grandiose scheme which can ameliorate all the difficulties which one seeks to get rid of. It is only by a sequence of relatively small schemes that one gets results. Indeed, one could instance many small development schemes which have yielded very beneficial results.
7.45 p.m.
The fact that only minor schemes have as yet been undertaken in an industry which is notoriously the Cinderella of the metal industries denotes the large amount of development which still has to be done, and I would have thought that was the attitude which the Minister should have adopted before introducing the Amendment on the Committee stage. For many years both the Labour Government and the present Government have been spending considerable sums of money on research in order, among other things, to rid the foundries of dust which is responsible for silicosis and other diseases from which foundrymen suffer.
The results of that research have not yet been applied. I remember when I was at the Ministry of Labour that one of the things we were trying to do was to implement the results of that research, to bring them to fruition and to get them to floor level in the foundries in order that the toll of silicosis and other diseases could rapidly be diminished. But as yet those responsible for this research have not been able to bring their work forward sufficiently quickly to allow the improvements in health in foundries to take place. Yet, despite that fact, the Minister now tells us that the Board are not intended to concern themselves with minor schemes of this kind.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lee: Those were his words, and I hear confirmation of them coming from the hon. Member for Kidderminster. The sheer heartlessness of this attitude is most appalling. I am trying to address myself to a serious issue, and I would advise the hon. Member for Kidderminster to keep away from the annual

conferences of foundry workers because the ridicule which he is pouring on their efforts to eliminate disease from the foundries may bring him into actual physical contact with a few particularly hard and gnarled fists.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must not make these wild statements. The Iron Foundry Workers' Union in my constituency are on the closest and most amicable terms with their Member of Parliament, for they realise, of course, that they have no stronger supporter for improving working conditions in factories than their local Member.

Mr. Lee: It is most peculiar that the hon. Gentleman who has boasted of his supremacy over the Minister and who has done everything he possibly can to get iron foundries out of the control of a responsible Board should now hope to convince this House that he is doing so because of his love for the foundry workers and because he desires to press ahead with better conditions in foundries. I should think better of him if he would be honest enough to tell us that his sole interest is that of the foundry owners, and at that, may be, not the most reputable section of foundry owners.
As I was saying, it is essential that we should go ahead and get results from the research for which this Government and the last Labour Government have been paying so dearly, and it is at this very time that the Minister has decided to remove this industry from the supervision of the Board. Quite apart from welfare, there is great need to supervise the expansion and development of the foundry industry.
Welfare and efficiency must go hand in hand. Large sections of the engineering industry depend for their raw material on the supply of castings from the foundries. We all agree on the necessity for a great expansion of engineering production, but it is quite impossible for that to happen if in many sections of the industry the pace has to be measured by a shortage of castings coming from the foundry industry.
I hope that even at this stage the Minister will go back to his previous ideas and realise that it is quite essential that we should have supervision of the foundry industries by the Board. As foundries develop and begin to expand


their products, they will draw off supplies of iron and steel products which in present conditions go to other manufacturing sections of the engineering industry. In a brief intervention during the Committee stage of this Bill, I tried to point to the changed nature of the foundry industry. I referred to the introduction of prefabrication which is, as yet, in its infancy and is a feature of which we must take note in the context of this Bill. Even moulding, which has survived as a handcraft to this day, is beginning to enter a stage of mechanisation.
In these days when developments are being made at an increasing tempo, how can the Minister pin his arguments on the basis that only small developments have taken place? It is the excuse of the servant girl that, after all, the baby was only a little one. It has no basis in logic. The Minister must know that he was perfectly right in the first instance to have insisted on the iron foundries remaining under the supervision of the Board. I hope that even now, having seen the reaction in most responsible quarters to his surrender on that issue, he will decide that, rather than bow either to the ogling or the braying of some of his hon. Friends, he will stand on his principles and turn down Kidderminster and other interested quarters. I hope that he will tell us that, on consideration of the arguments which have been adduced in this House and of the reaction of the trade union movement, he will agree to accept the Amendment and to delete this subsection (6).

Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is my maiden speech on this miserable, partisan Measure. When the Minister introduced subsection (6) on Committee stage, he made a very short speech. I do not blame him for that. I have seen many Ministers of this Government trying to defend a weak case, but never has a Minister had such a weak case to defend as when the right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment to introduce this subsection (6). He told us:
The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt the foundries from the application of the Board's power of veto in respect of development schemes under Clause 5."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 693.]

The remainder of the speech was an explanation, not of the necessity for the Amendment, but of the lack of need for it.
If I were to accept the Minister's explanation—and of course I do not—even then, as a former teacher of English who dislikes redundant phrases, I would oppose this subsection. But I do not accept the Minister's explanation on Committee stage. There is much more to it than what the Minister said at that time. His simple explanation by no means covers the case. The Board have what I would term very limited powers of vetoing development in the iron and steel industry under this Bill. This subsection has taken from them any power of vetoing development of iron foundries, no matter how extensive that development might be. I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has realised that the power of veto has been taken completely out of the hands of the Board, not only in the case of minor developments, but of major developments in the industry.

Mr. Nabarro: Quite right.

Miss Herbison: It is quite clear to us that this subsection is not an example of redundancy, as the Minister tried to make it out to be, but is a subsection that will do harm to industrial efficiency. Quite clearly, this is another example of this Government's shocking lack of interest in the national well-being. We remember this Government, or leaders of this Government, telling the country during the Election that what was needed was strong, wise, decisive leadership. They said, "Only return the Tory Party to Government and you will get that wonderful leadership." What a farce their Ministers have made of that claim.
I do not think that this country has ever had a Government who have shilly-shallied so much over important things as have the members of this Government, from the Prime Minister right down to the merest junior Minister. The Government have yielded to every act of pressure that has been brought upon them by their wealthy supporters, and it is yielding to acts of pressure that has led to shilly-shallying and not the decisive leadership that the nation was promised and perhaps had a right to expect.
This subsection is another example of the Government's protecting the interests of the few. At one time it was the brewers; this time it is the foundry owners. The Government can only provide this type of protection at the expense of the interests of the majority of the people of this country. For that reason again, I oppose this subsection and hope that the Minister will withdraw it.
It seems to me, from my little knowledge of them, that foundries are an important and integral part of the iron and steel and engineering industries. If the Minister is convinced that in the interest of efficient production it is necessary to give the Board certain powers of veto on development in iron and steel, he has no case whatever for not extending that power to development in foundries.
It is true that the right hon. Gentleman said on Committee stage that in the majority of cases foundry development was a small development; but it is no use his saying that no foundry scheme in the future would be large enough to come within the scope of the Board's veto powers. I am sure that he does not want to add one other claim to the already extravagant claims of this Government by suggesting that he or any other member of this Government is a prophet or a seer.
8.0 p.m.
If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in industrial efficiency and in the maximum output of our industry, he ought to realise—as my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment proved—that although in the past developments in foundries have been mainly small ones, that is no reason to think that they will continue to be so in future. From my study of this question, I would say that if we are to pay our way in the world—as we can do only if we get a higher degree of efficiency in all our industries—and if the foundries are to play their part both in the iron and steel industry and in future engineering developments, there must be what I term major developments in the foundry industry. If we are to have those major developments the Minister should be ready to accept this Amendment, because what he thinks is necessary for iron and steel must also be necessary for any major developments in foundries.
Most people would agree that, in assessing the factors which lead to industrial efficiency and higher production, the health and safety conditions of the workers must not be ignored. It is of the greatest importance to safeguard and improve those conditions. The hon. Member for Kidderminster seems to think that subsection (6) has no effect on this question, but if he has read the Garrett Report he will realise that the elimination of this subsection would make it possible for the Board to do something to bring about the fulfilment of the recommendations made in that report.
I hope to convince the hon. Member that that is so. I was fortunate to be able to present a Private Member's Bill in this House, and I chose one dealing with health and safety conditions in foundries. That Bill got its Second Reading, and we meant to take it to the Committee stage. Here I should like to praise one of Her Majesty's Ministers—the Minister of Labour—who co-operated to a very great extent on this Measure and who, in, the shortest possible time, published draft Regulations. I thank him for the very great help he gave us.
But a Private Member could never be ambitious enough to try to incorporate in a Private Member's Bill all the recommendations of the Garrett Report. Many of those recommendations are still not contained in Regulations and they may not be for some time. If the Minister had not inserted this subsection (6) the Board would have had limited powers of veto, and if they had wanted to make this Cinderella of the engineering industry more attractive to our ambitious young men—and I use the word "ambitious" in its very best sense—they could have said, as far as any major development was concerned, "We will give our permission to carry on with that major development so long as we are assured that every recommendation of the Garrett Report is carried out." That would have been one of the biggest improvements in the foundry industry. It would have led to better conditions, happier workers and much greater production.
I hope the Minister will take these facts into account and forget the small pressure group of foundry owners who have been at him since this Bill was suggested. He should put their interests completely behind him and keep in mind the real


interests and the future industrial efficiency of this nation.

Mr. Nabarro: It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge a maiden speech on this Bill. I shall therefore be very restrained in my comments on the speech delivered by the hon. Lady. I am sure she does not mind; she is a tough customer and she can take criticism in good heart. Her speech was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). At least the hon. Lady was tolerably accurate, whereas the hon. Gentleman was wildly inaccurate.
What has this Clause, and the inclusion in it of subsection (6), to do with health, safety and welfare? If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill in any great detail he would have observed that in Clause 3 (1) there appear these words, as being a direct responsibility of the Board:
… the arrangements for the promotion of the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in the iron and steel industry. …
In so far as the Board are not able to make the necessary provisions, the requirements of the Factories Acts will look after any deficiencies there may be.

Miss Herbison: We realise that that provision is contained in Clause 3 and also that there are certain provisions in the Factories Acts; but even those provisions are not sufficient to bring about what the supporters of the Foundry Workers Bill were asking for. That is why I stressed the fact that one way of getting all those provisions in any new major development was by giving the Board this power. By quoting Clause 3 the hon. Member does not do away with the case that has been made from this side of the House.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall answer the hon. Lady so long as I can remain in order. Early in her speech she confessed that she had only little knowledge of iron foundries. I must therefore sympathise with her. The problem with regard to health, safety and welfare in iron foundries is not that of new developments and new foundries, but of raising the standards in the old foundries. I should be out of order if I pursued health, safety and welfare. The hon. Member for Newton placed himself grossly out of order in doing so,

for there is no mention of those matters in this Clause.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Gentleman to tell you that you were completely out of order in allowing me to continue a certain line of argument?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I did not think the hon. Gentleman intended his remark to be understood in that way.

Mr. Nabarro: I intended no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am complaining that the hon. Member's speech was wildly irrelevant. I wrote down a few words from one of the early sentences of his speech. He said, "The effect of the deletion of subsection (6) would be to remove iron foundries from the control of the Board." In fact, nothing of that sort would occur. All that would happen is that the Board—as the hon. Lady recognises, in complete contradistinction to her hon. Friend—will not have control over the development of iron foundries.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) interpolated the word "nonsense" in a speech I made on the Committee stage. I am sure he will remember the incident. I said how difficult it would be for the Board to exercise any close degree of supervision over development plans for iron foundries due to the fact that there are more than 2,000 foundries in this country and the overwhelming majority of them are small ones. I said that, as the Bill is drafted, if a foundry wished to double its plant and add one sandbox to an existing sandbox, involving the employment of four men instead of two, they would have had to apply to the Board for permission.
A controversy developed about what is a minor scheme. Both the hon. Member for Newton and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North fastened on the point that minor schemes would be excluded, but my right hon. Friend's difficulty in a matter of this sort is obviously that of defining what is a minor scheme. A foundry which had one sandbox and wished to add one more would regard that as a major addition, whereas a foundry with 100 sandboxes which wished to add one more would be adding only 1 per cent. If we endeavoured to apply the terms of Clause 5 (2) to iron foundries


there would be very great difficulties indeed. I have been completely consistent throughout this Bill——

Mr. Percy Shurmer: You always are.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has just walked in. He knows nothing of the argument.

Mr. Shurmer: Mr. Shurmer rose——

Mr. Nabarro: I will not give way. The hon. Member is a notorious nuisance in the House. Perhaps I may come back to what I said on Second Reading. These were the words I used, as reported in column 703:
Secondly, the Board should have no restrictive powers affecting the development of iron foundries except in cases where such development is called for in an amount of more than £250,000 as an aggregate of plant and buildings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 703.]
In other words, I was pleading that only large foundry development schemes should come within the scrutiny and under the jurisdiction of the development powers of the Board.
My right hon. Friend decided to go rather further. He said he could well afford to exclude altogether the large schemes from the Board's development plans because there were so very few of them. I think that, on balance, my right hon. Friend's decision is wise. In the last few years there have been only a handful of schemes involving a capital expenditure of more than £250,000, and whether they should come under the development control of the Board seems to be largely academic. No engineering undertaking will spend £250,000 or more on a new foundry unless the demand for its products, its castings and its associated products exists and is likely to continue.
The hon. Member for Newton referred to alarm in the Trades Union Congress about this subsection. I have not had the privilege of seeing that expression of alarm.

Mr. Lee: I read it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman produced a foolscap sheet, but he did not read the whole of it. I think he read one sentence.

Mr. Lee: Does the hon. Member dispute the statement made by the T.U.C., because it appeared in all the Press?

Mr. Nabarro: I should be interested to know whether the T.U.C. expressed alarm about the whole question of the iron foundries in this proposed set-up or only about the removal of development control—because it is only the latter which we are discussing here. We are not discussing health, safety, and welfare. What the T.U.C. expressed alarm about was the prospect that health and safety and the general interests of the workers in the industry would not be fully safeguarded. The hon. Member for Newton should be a little more precise in his argument.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The T.U.C. are alarmed about the effects of the action of the Government in introducing Clause 5 (6) into the Bill at all because of its effects on the supervision of development. They believe it will have detrimental effects upon development which could, in turn, affect the health of the workers.

Mr. Nabarro: I find it difficult to believe that the T.U.C. would feel any alarm at all about the removal of control over large development schemes. But to return to what I said earlier, the T.U.C. expressed alarm about the interests of the workers and about health, safety and welfare; and those points are fully covered in Clause 3, augmented and supplemented by the requirements of the Factories Acts.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady made reference to the foundry owners. I do not represent the foundry owners. I have spoken on foundry matters throughout the Bill from a long experience of that branch of the engineering industry, but I do not represent the foundry owners. The Council of Iron-foundry Associations, if this is any news to the hon. Member for Newton, made no mention whatever in their representation to my right hon. Friend of the removal of these powers in relation to development.

Mr. Lee: How do you know?

Mr. Nabarro: I saw the confidential memorandum——

Mr. Lee: Oh.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member should let me complete my sentence. I saw the confidential memorandum which the Council of Ironfoundry Associations distributed to their 2,000 members. They had the courtesy to send me a copy. [Laughter.] There is no cause for amusement. They made certain recommendations for the improvement of the Bill, and they were fully justified in doing so.
May I make one or two observations about my right hon. Friend's very wise decision to remove development control over iron foundries from the Board? It would have been impossible to operate such control efficiently in view of the very large number of small foundries in this country and of the problem of defining what was a minor development. That was the first reason. The second reason, which no one has yet mentioned, was the special position of tied foundries in engineering works. This Bill is not intended to exercise control over the general engineering industry or supervision over any part of that industry, but had iron foundries been brought, in toto, under the control of the Iron and Steel Board, it would have been necessary for an engineering works with a tied foundry—a foundry devoting its entire output to the finished products of that engineering concern—to make application to the Board in order to extend the production facilities of the foundry.
That would have led to an intolerable situation, with the Iron and Steel Board having a measure of control over an engineering undertaking or enterprise. Surely that would have been wholly wrong. Also, it would have been impossible to operate it efficiently. In removing iron foundries from the control of the Board my right hon. Friend gave effect to the representations which had been made to him by the iron foundry industry and, I readily confess, by myself. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newton need not cackle like a broody hen.

Mr. Lee: Why should not I? You roar like a bull.

Mr. Nabarro: I said what I had to say publicly on Second Reading. There was no subterfuge or concealment about it. I said it in good humour and with a sincerity based on quite a long experience in these matters.
I hope my right hon. Friend will reject this misconceived Amendment, which is based on erroneous statements and has been moved by an hon. Member who has not yet taken the trouble to read the Bill although it has been in the hands of hon. Members for several months. I trust that if a Division is forced on this Amendment, a decisive majority will be recorded against the machinations of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said that on a previous occasion I made a short speech. I hope to make a short speech again now. The hon. Lady said that she was making, so to speak, a maiden speech on the Iron and Steel Bill this evening. Perhaps it was not quite as maidenly as most of the speeches which had been made on this Bill. The hon. Lady is a newcomer to our debates, and is perhaps a little out of touch with the constructive and amicable atmosphere which prevailed until her entry.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) based himself, as did the hon. Lady, largely on the necessity to remove this subsection in order to ensure better working conditions in the iron and steel foundries. This Clause is concerned with the veto power of the Board over development. It was never intended that it should be used as a means of examining detailed plans—washing arrangements, canteens, dust conditions and things of that kind—which are essential for the well-being of a factory or a foundry.
This Clause is concerned with the broad pattern of the development plans of the industry. As the hon. Lady herself pointed out, conditions in the foundries were examined by the Garrett Committee in 1947. On the basis of the recommendations of that Committee, and stimulated, no doubt, by the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends in bringing in her Bill the other day, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour produced, as the hon. Lady said—she made a gracious reference to him and singled him out from the rest of this "miserable" Government—these Regulations, which I have here and with which the hon. Lady is familiar: the Iron and Steel Foundries Regulations, 1953. These, I think, as the hon. Lady will agree, go a long way in the right direction. It is in that way, I believe, that we shall make


more progress towards improvement of conditions than by any veto Clause, such as is now proposed on foundry developments.
The other argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newton was that the rest of the industry—no doubt he had in mind the engineering industry—was dependent upon an adequate supply of castings and that some expansion of casting capacity might well be necessary to meet the needs of the whole industry. But again, I think, the hon. Member overlooks the fact that this Clause is not concerned with expansion but is concerned with vetoing a development scheme. This would, therefore, be quite an inappropriate place in the Bill to provide for the kind of expansion which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
These expansions are dealt with under a different Clause, as well as the efforts which the Board should make to promote and encourage these expansions. The hon. Gentleman quoted me as having said on an earlier occasion that I was introducing this subsection to make sure, although, in my opinion, it was not entirely necessary to insert it, and would probably not have a very great effect upon the action of the Board in this connection.
The hon. Gentleman took some exception to that. I would point out to him and his hon. Friends that I have accepted a number of Amendments from hon. Members opposite, the sole purpose of which was to make sure that we were quite clear what the Board would do on certain matters. On a number of occasions, I have said that I do not consider an Amendment is necessary, but if there is any doubt as to the meaning of the Bill, let us by all means cross the t's and dot the i's and make sure that there is no possible uncertainty.

Mr. Lee: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is one thing to agree to put in an Amendment after considerable discussion in the House of Commons in which a number of hon. Members showed concern about the issue, and quite another thing for him to come along to the House and say, in effect, "Because of the arguments I have heard behind closed doors, I now propose to do this in spite of the fact that I think these arguments are wrong"?

Mr. Sandys: That is not what I said. I said on Second Reading, and previously in the debate on the White Paper, that, in my opinion, this veto Clause would not affect foundry development, because the Bill says that these schemes are not to come within the scope of the Board's veto without the insertion of subsection (6) unless they would, in the opinion of the Board,
seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain.
It has to be a fairly substantial scheme seriously to prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities in Great Britain.
8.30 p.m.
Even if the subsection had not been inserted, very rarely, if ever, would a foundry scheme have come within the scope of the veto Clause as it is drafted, but since there was anxiety in the industry about the possible application of the Clause in a way which was not intended, I thought it right to make the position perfectly clear. After all, the Bill is not purely a Parliamentary instrument. It is to some extent a charter, an experiment in a new relationship between the Government, a public body and a privately owned industry. If the scheme is to be a success, it is important that we should as far as possible carry with us in spirit, and not only by legislation, all the essential elements in industry who will have to play their part.
I turn now to the subject of working conditions, which has been stressed more than any other and which was, I believe, in the mind of the T.U.C. in making its statement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) correctly pointed out, the supervision of the safety, health and welfare of employees in the foundry industry, as in all other parts of the iron and steel industry, is provided for under not Clause 5, but Clause 3. Clause 3 applies to all the activities set out in the Third Schedule and this includes foundries as well as other iron and steel activities.
Some foundries have excellent conditions; I have been very much impressed by some that I have visited, but others leave much to be desired. There is a wide gap between the best and the worst


in the foundry industry, and I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North is keenly aware of that. I sincerely hope that the Bill will, among other things, have the effect of improving the general level of foundry

Division No. 119.]
AYES
[8.31 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Alport, C. J. M.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Arbuthnot, John
Gower, H. R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Major S. F.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baker, P. A. D.
Grimond, J.
Marples, A. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Banks, Col. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Barber, Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Barlow, Sir John
Harden, J. R. E.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Baxter, A. B.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mellor, Sir John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Black, C. W.
Hay, John
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bossom, A. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Heath, Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Higgs, J. M. C.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Brains, B. R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. ((Wythenshawe)
Nutting, Anthony


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hollis, M. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charts Ian (Hendon, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.




Bullard, D. G.
Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Wston-super-Mare)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Osborne, C.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Campbell, Sir David
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Carr, Robert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Channon, H.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hurd, A. R.
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Cole, Norman
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Profumo, J. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Raynor, Brig. R.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jennings, R.
Redmayne, M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Renton, D. L. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crouch, R. F.
Kaberry, D.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Peter (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambton, Viscount
Robson Brown, W.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Law, Rt. Hon R. K.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Davidson, Viscountess
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropers, Sir Harold


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Russell, R. S.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Linstead, H. N.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Llewellyn, D. T.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas



Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Dugdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Scott, R. Donald


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Finlay, Græme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fisher, Nigel
McCallum, Major D.
Soames, Capt. C.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, C
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Speir, R. M.


Fort, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Foster, John
McKibbin, A. J.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stevens, G. P.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maclean, Fitzroy
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

conditions throughout the country; if it does I shall be well pleased.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Nose, 231.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tilney, John
Watkinson, H. A.


Storey, S.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Turton, R. H.
Wellwood, W.


Studholme, H. G.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Summers, G. S.
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Teeling, W.
Wade, D. W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Turo)


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Wood, Hon. R.


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
York, C.


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)



Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mort, D. L


Adams, Richard
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moyle, A.


Albu, A. H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D R
Mulley, F. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker Rt. Hon. P. J


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oliver, G. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oswald, T.


Balfour, A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Hannan, W.
Paget, R. T.


Bartley, P.
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bence, C. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, S.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Benson, G.
Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles


Beswick, F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parker, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.


Blackburn, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Peart, T. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blyton, W. R.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Poole, C. C.


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J. H.
Popplewell, E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Porter, G.


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Carmichael, J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)


Champion, A. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Ross, William


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Royle, C.


Collick, P. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Cove, W. G
Keenan, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, C.
Short, E. W


Crosland, C. A. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Deer, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G
Sparks, J. A.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G
Steele, T.


Donnelly, D. L.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McLeavy, F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Edelman, M.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fienburgh, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, Iorwerth(Rhondda, W.)


Finch, H. J.
Messer, F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, E.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Timmons, J.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morley, R.
Tomney, F.


Gibson C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gooch, E. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn







Viant, S. P.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Watkins, T. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Weitzman, D.
Wigg, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Yates, V. F.


Wells, William (Walsall)
Wilkins, W. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


West, D. G.
Willey, F. T.



Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. A. Allen.

Clause 7.—(DUTY OF PRODUCERS TO COMPLY WITH BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PRICES.)

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, after "any," to insert "class of."
This very small Amendment arises out of a question put to me by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). I am sorry that he is not here. He is on the other side of the Atlantic. During the Committee stage he said he was not clear whether the words "any … products" covered the point which worried him, that if a producer had 10 products and a number of different selling agents and the Board were determining whether these were agents within the subsection, the Board would have regard to each of the products separately or to all 10 products. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that they would have regard to each one of the products separately.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out "the next following section," and to insert, "section nine of this Act." The reference is obvious—to Section 9. I would only say that as Homer sometimes nods and has an occasional somnolence, so duller poets often seem given to a nap.

Mr. J. Hynd: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me to wax poetic, but none the less I would congratulate him on finding a small technical flaw in the Bill and on having drawn our attention to it so that it could be put right. I am sure that he would be the last person to consider that the presence of a flaw shows any lack of skill on the part of the very experienced draftsmen who have prepared the Bill. It is a great achievement that there should be so few. One more is coming before us in a moment and with it I think we shall have covered all the shortcomings of the draftsmanship of this long and complicated

Bill. We are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for pointing this one out.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(IMPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF RAW MATERIALS AND FINISHED PRODUCTS.)

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 11, line 20, to leave out "that," and to insert "any such."
This is a small drafting Amendment necessitated after the Amendment made in Committee in the previous line to change "and" into "or." Now the word "or" appears, the word "that" does not make much sense and we therefore propose to substitute these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in line 24, to leave out "and," and to insert "or, as the case may be."
This Amendment follows the advice given at the end of a short debate on this subsection by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). We were advised that the words were all right, but we were rather inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the meaning of the words if they include "or, as the case may be" is slightly clearer. We therefore recommend to the House that they accept this alteration and we wish to express our gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in line 26, after "secured," to insert "within a reasonable time."
This is an addition to an Amendment that was made in Committee and during that debate, when we were discussing the Amendment moved by one of my hon. Friends, I think it was the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey), the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out that there seemed to be a loophole in the words and that it might be possible


for the Board to be prevented from doing what they ought to do under this subsection by the feeling that at some time, perhaps after a long time, the industry could put matters right. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend promised, we have considered the matter carefully and we have come to the conclusion that to make clear what was our meaning and the meaning of the Committee in that discussion, we should insert these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in line 37, to leave out "distribution," and to insert "sale."
I need not explain this to the House, because my right hon. Friend explained this fully during the Committee stage and in an earlier debate this afternoon we covered the point. Shortly, it is that the Board are not concerned with the allocation of finished steel and in so far as the word "distribution" includes both the meaning of sale and marketing and of positive allocation, we want to make it clear here that we are referring to the sale side only.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not consider me captious and will acquit me of any desire to overwork another place. I notice, however, that "distribution" occurs throughout subsection (1), and if some alteration is being made in subsection (2) perhaps it would be advisable to do the same in subsection (1).

Mr. Low: The point was covered earlier. Subsection (1) deals with raw materials, and subsection (2) with finished products. There is, therefore, a difference in the Board's attitude to these two matters. The raw materials are used by the steel industry, and the iron and steel products are to be used by people outside the industry.

Mr. Mitchison: This is a wholly exceptional case on the misguided view that the Government take of the Bill. I believe that for once the Parliamentary Secretary is absolutely right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in line 45, after "is," to insert "or will shortly become."
It is not necessary to explain the the Amendment very fully because the

whole question was discussed during the Committee stage. After considering various alternative forms of words, we think that "or will shortly become" meet the views which I expressed and the point which I put to the Committee. The Amendment is intended to qualify the wards,
unless it appears to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister. …
in lines 41 and 42.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR
BOARD.)

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, to leave out "the said scheme," and to insert:
a scheme made under this section.
This is a small drafting Amendment. The Clause provides for funds for the Board to be got from the industry by means of a levy. Subsection (6) provides the machinery for collecting those funds by providing that
The amount of any contribution payable by any person under the said scheme shall be a debt due by him to the Board.
Subsection (7) provides for extension, confirmation or modification of any such scheme.
As the Clause is drafted, however, there is no machinery for collecting the contribution under an extended or modified scheme. The "said scheme" only refers to what has been foregoing and not to what comes after. The Amendment is designed to ensure that any contribution under an original scheme or a modified scheme shall be a debt to the Board.

Mr. Robson Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: As I said, two flaws have been discovered. As we hoped that this would be an agreed all-party Measure, it is right, proper and fitting that two hon. and learned Gentlemen from either side of the House should have contributed in this way to put matters right. We are very glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

>Clause 14.—(FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO BOARD AND MINISTER.)

Mr. Chetwynd: I beg to move, in page 14, line 23, to leave out "but not relating directly to," and to insert "including."
I had a very powerful speech ready for this Amendment, but then I noticed the Amendment in the name of the Minister to line 30, to leave out "such," and to insert:
(a) such information relating to the costs of production of any products to which section seven of this Act applies as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or by the Minister for the purposes of his functions under this Act, or
(b) such other.
I wish to ask why the Minister has agreed to do something he was so adamant that he could not do when we were in Committee. In view of that Amendment, I wish to ask why the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to give way on subsection (2) but not on subsection (1)? It seems to me that the Amendment I have moved is a much clearer way of getting to the same end in subsection (1) than the Amendment to be moved by the Minister, but I moved my Amendment in order to safeguard his Amendment to subsection (2). If we have the right to get information, I do not see how we can get that information without including information on costs of production.

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House if we were also to discuss my Amendment to page 14, line 30. If so, I should answer the hon. Member and at the same time explain the reason for my Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that meets with the wishes of the House.

Mr. Sandys: As I understand it, the Opposition are anxious that the Board should have all necessary information relating to costs of production. I do not accept that I was opposed to the provision so adamantly as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) suggested. I made clear on an earlier occasion that to a large extent the information could be obtained under the Clause as it stands, but, in order to make sure, I have tabled this Amendment.
As it stands, the Bill empowers the Board to obtain all the information it might require for fixing prices. That is the most likely purpose for which the

Board may require information about costs. However, as was pointed out by several hon. Members in Committee, the Board might in certain circumstances require information about costs for other purposes than price-fixing; for example, under Clause 3. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
In this Amendment I have tried to meet the precise criticism which was made. The Amendment will enable the Board to obtain information about costs not only for price-fixing, but for all purposes under the Bill. There are two differences between my Amendment and the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. Under the hon. Member's Amendment all iron and steel products would be brought within the scope of this Clause. The Board would be able to obtain information about costs of all iron and steel products for any purpose.
My Amendment excludes foundry and forge products for reasons which I explained earlier. We wish to avoid as far as possible placing an undue burden of paper work upon small foundry firms, some of which employ only a few men in a back yard and have no clerical organisation to deal with inquiries which might arise in this connection. These foundry and forge products are excluded so long as they are not brought within the scope of Clause 7, when they would be treated in the same way as any other iron and steel product in the Third Schedule.
9.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked why this was put into subsection (2) and not in subsection (1). By inserting this reference to cost in the second subsection instead of the first we have met a point to which we attach importance. Had we done what the hon. Member suggested, we should have deprived the Board of the right to require that this information be certified by auditors.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am satisfied with the explanation of the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 14, line 27, at end, insert:
(2) The Board shall so exercise their powers under the preceding subsection as to secure that, in such cases as may be defined by notice in writing, if any iron and steel producer, one of whose main activities forms part of the iron and steel industry, proposes to close down any works of substantial size used by him for the purpose of any activity forming part of the iron and steel industry, or any substantial group of production facilities in any such works as aforesaid, he shall inform the Board of the proposals as early as practicable.

In page 14, line 30, leave out "such," and insert:

(a) such information relating to the costs of production of any products to which section seven of this Act applies as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or by the Minister for the purposes of his functions under this Act, or
(b) such other.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(3) The Board or the Minister may by notice in writing require any organisation representative of iron and steel producers to furnish to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister, such information as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purposes of their functions under this Act or by the Minister for the purpose of his functions under this Act; and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such information may consist of or include information as to the amount, incidence, purpose and expenditure of any levy or other contribution imposed, collected or received by or through the organisation on or from iron and steel producers or any group of iron and steel producers.
We have had a number of discussions about the powers granted to the Board to obtain information and about the limits to be set to the scope of that information. I do not wish to go over the ground again. What we are asking in this Amendment is that the powers of the Board to obtain information be extended to trade associations, as well as to companies engaged in iron and steel production, so that the Board shall be able to carry out their duties effectively. In particular, we think it important that information should be obtained from the Iron and Steel Federation.
This is a reasonable request, because most of the information the Board will need will be obtained in the normal course of the Federation's activities. Research and the collection of information is one of the Federation's main tasks. I am sure that the House would agree that

it would be wrong for the Board to set up another fact-finding agency. The only point which we wish to cover is the unlikely event in which the Federation refuses to divulge to the Board the facts which it collects from the industry when the Board makes a normal request.
In those circumstances, we think it would be quite wrong if, in the case of the Federation withholding information which was wanted by the Board, the Board should have to do the job themselves, thereby duplicating all the services and wasting a lot of time and money. We therefore suggest that it is reasonable to ask that the Board should have the right to use the Federation's fact-finding services in just the same way as the Board have the right to collect information from the companies engaged in the industry.
We also suggest in this Amendment that, in particular, the Board ought to have the right to obtain information about the levies which the Federation imposes on the industry. This opens a wider subject, which we have discussed before in Committee, and I must say that I have been rather surprised and somewhat shocked by the views expressed by the Minister and some of his hon. Friends in these Committee discussions. Their view has been that trade associations can do what they like; they can raise money how they like and spend the money which they raise how they choose; if they choose, they can keep the accounts secret, and there is no reason why they should publish the accounts. The Minister himself said in Committee, and I quote him:
I really do not see why either the Board or Parliament should require to know how money raised by a trade association is spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1281.]
The right hon. Gentleman was referring to employers' trade associations. If he had been referring to workers' trade associations, he would have been inviting those associations to break the law, because the law as it affects workers' trade associations is very strict. The workers' trade associations have to render public account of the levies which they make and the contributions which they receive, and show how their income is spent. We are not complaining about the strict legal provisions as far as they affect workers' trade associations. We accept them, and we do not want to alter them, because we


think that these trade union laws are very satisfactory.
We do say, however, that the same laws ought to apply to employers' associations. I know that I would be out of order if I pursued that matter much further, because it is outside the scope of this Bill, but, with permission, perhaps I may add one sentence to express the hope that the matter will be dealt with by the next Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), in the course of the discussion in Committee, appreciated this point, because he said, and I quote him:
… any voluntary organisation, association, trade union or body of people has to raise levies, I concede that what we have to be satisfied about is that those levies are not excessive and that the use of the money is a reasonable and proper one for the conduct of the association or federation."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 18th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1275.]
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot be satisfied that all levies are reasonable and well spent unless the particular associations concerned publish their accounts. We cannot ask for that in this Bill, but we can give the Board the right to find out how the Federations levies are raised and how they are spent.

Mr. Gower: Has it occurred to the hon. Member that as a trade association is a voluntary body the constituent companies could choose not to have such an association at all?

Mr. Darling: That is a far-fetched view to put forward about the iron and steel industry, because the services rendered to the industry by the Federation are such that none of the companies within the industry would like to be without its services.
We suggest that the Federation should be treated as the trade unions are treated, although, as I have said, I should be out of order in developing that point. We are asking that the information about the Federation's funds and its levies should be made known to the Board. I am not discussing the industrial fund in particular. In Committee, the Minister suggested that the Board would be able to get information about the balancing fund in so far as it affected the fixing of prices. We think that the information should go

much further than that, particularly with regard to the special levies about which no information, so far as I know, has ever been given by the Federation.
We must bear in mind that the Federation collects something like £800,000 a year by these levies, which is a considerable sum. I think the Board ought to know just what the Federation does with that money. Some very vague statements have been made about it in the course of our discussions. It has been suggested that it is used for research and training, and the hon. Member for Esher even mentioned pensions. But so far as I know there is no evidence that the £800,000 a year is used for the provision of pensions generally in the industry. Neither is there any evidence that the money is spent on education and training. We appreciate how it is spent on statistical research, but I am sure that expenditure does not account for the whole £800,000.
It has been suggested that part of the levies is used for political purposes, and that has not been denied. I do not wish to argue whether it is right or wrong for this or any other trade association to use its income for political purposes, but I do say that if the political activities of workers' associations are restricted by law, it is wrong that employers' associations should not also be so restricted.
It is not only a matter of the trade unions. During the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) quite rightly pointed out that Co-operative societies spend money for political purposes. But under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, the Co-operative societies have to render a full account in public of all their income and expenditure, and I think that the same kind of laws ought to apply to all trade associations.
We do not think that the Iron and Steel Federation ought to be in a privileged position in the matter. If, under this Bill, we cannot ask for the income and expenditure of the Federation to be made public in detail in the same way as trade unions and Co-operative societies funds are made public, we say that its income and expenditure should at least be known to the Board. If the right hon. Gentleman and his party wish to avoid trouble in this issue they will accept this Amendment. It would be easy for the right hon.


Gentleman to do so because I believe the Federation gave an undertaking to the Iron and Steel Corporation that they would produce information about their levies and about the expenditure of the income from those levies every six months.
9.15 p.m.
I hope that the undertaking has not been scrapped under the new set-up. If it has been scrapped, it will look very sinister. It will look as though the Federation, having been requested by the nationalised industry to divulge information, will now revert to their status as a secret society under this Bill, which is supposed to provide for public supervision of the industry. It will look doubly sinister if the right hon. Gentleman defends this objectionable secrecy while insisting that trade unions and cooperative societies must render to the public a full account of their affairs.

Mr. Chetwynd: I beg to second the Amendment.
I only want to add a few words to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) raised at the end of his speech concerning the agreement between the Iron and Steel Corporation and the Federation. It was a kind of working agreement covering a large number of points, one of which was that the Federation would divulge to the Corporation every six months the income and expenditure of the special fund. I tried to put a Question on the Order Paper to find out what happened to that fund, but the matter was not within the Minister's responsibility and I was unsuccessful. But I should think that the Minister has that information at his disposal. It would help us in discussing this Amendment if he could give some details of income and expenditure so that the answer to our worst fears may be brought out into the open.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak before the Minister replies, because I want to make some remarks to which the Minister may be willing to refer when he addresses the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) has explained with admirable clarity and, indeed, restraint the purpose for which we put this Amendment on the Order Paper. In

doing so, my hon. Friend referred only incidentally to possible expenditure for political purposes, to which we devoted a good deal of time in Committee. I do not want to refer again to that subject, since we discussed it at some length last time and my hon. Friend has again asked pertinent questions about it.
I would remind the Minister that during the Committee stage I suggested that, for all we know, it may be that some of the money raised by the Federation by this levy may be expended on the furtherance of monopolistic practices. So intense was the interest in the question of political expenditure that when the Minister replied to the debate he did not refer at all to what I said on that occasion. Perhaps he will do so this time.
After all, right hon. Gentleman opposite admit definitely and clearly the possibility of monopolistic practice in the iron and steel industry. It would be very surprising if they did not in view of the long history of that industry with which we are all familiar. They have recognised the possibility to some slight degree in their Bill. They have put into one Clause a reference to the Monopolies Commission. It is a very brief and fleeting reference of a rather negative character, but during speeches on Second Reading and other stages of the Bill the Minister frequently claimed that he can safeguard the consumer from the possibilities of monopolistic practice in this industry because he has at his call the Monopolies Commission.
We are not satisfied that that is an adequate safeguard to the consumer in view of the curious procedure which obtains with regard to references to the Monopolies Commission. One has to be aware of a good deal of restrictive practice before one can ask the Commission to look into the matter, and experience has shown that the investigation by that Commission takes a great deal of time.
If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are to extend the purview of the Commission to the whole of the nationalised industries they may take even longer over any one investigation. Yet apparently that is all the Minister intends to do, because when we suggested that some provision might be necessary to require some safeguard for the equitable


distribution of the products of the industry he was not willing to consider it.
I suggest that long before he refers anything to the Monopolies Commission he should satisfy himself whether something about which he ought to know is not going on under his own nose. He should not wait until the results have come to pass and then refer the matter to the Commission. Would it not be better if he were to find out, by the process suggested in my hon. Friend's Amendment, whether the Federation spend some of their money on the furtherance of monopolistic practices?
The Federation are a remarkable and most efficient body and they can produce very effective results. When I was Paymaster-General and had some responsibility in regard to the distribution of iron and steel I found that provided the Federation were given about six months' notice they could ensure, in the iron and steel products at the end of that period, exactly the range which was required. If one told them that six months hence one required rather more building steel and rather less railway steel, or rather more shipbuilding steel and rather less of some other kind of steel—down to details of types and kinds of steel—the Federation would produce it.
They have very great powers over the detailed workings of the industry and they have ways and means of doing these things, and we should like to be sure that when the industry is returned to private ownership these undoubtedly efficient ways and means are not used in any way against the public interest. I ask the Minister to address himself to the question whether or not the funds raised by the Federation through their levy might be used to further monopolistic practices and, if the answer is in the affirmative, whether—apart from any other consideration—he should not ensure that his Board can inform themselves in detail how the money is raised and spent.

Mr. Sandys: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not follow him in all the points he has raised, some of which are outside the scope of this Amendment, but I hope to give him some of the information for which he asks.
This Amendment divides itself into two parts. The first provides that the Board

shall be able to require trade associations to supply them with information which they obtain from their members. Whilst I do not imagine there is anything very secret or embarrassing about that type of information, the Board could obtain it from precisely the same sources as those from which the trade associations obtain it. It would constitute a complete duplication of functions.
Personally, I am inclined to think that the Board would do well to establish fairly direct contacts with iron and steel producers themselves, and not to rely upon getting information secondhand from trade associations. However, that will be for the Board to decide. I do not think we ought to encourage the Board to regard trade associations, important and useful as they are, as being an absolutely vital element in the organisation upon which they rely. However, I have no doubt that there will be not the slightest difficulty in the Board's obtaining information of this kind from associations, if it is more convenient to obtain it in that way. There can be no possible objection, because this is information which the Board are entitled to obtain directly from the firms which provide that information to the trade associations.
The second part of the Amendment concerns information about contributions to or levies raised by the trade associations. I believe that this is what interests hon. Members opposite most. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) used the expression "sinister." Other expressions have been used—"mystery," and so on—to describe this particular expenditure. When we talk about organisations representing the iron and steel producers, there is, as far as I can understand from listening to our debates on the subject, only one organisation in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and that is the one they describe as "Steel House." They talk of it almost as though it were the Brown House at Munich.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Very appropriate, particularly for the right hon. Gentleman to say that.

Mr. Sandys: What I would ask them to remember is that there are many other trade associations which come within this sphere, but for the moment, since, as I say, that is the matter that most whets the appetite of hon. Members opposite, I


shall confine myself to the question of contributions raised by the British Iron and Steel Federation from its members. Now, the levies which are raised by the Federation are of two kinds. The first is concerned with equalising prices. That is known as the Industry Fund and is used to equalise prices of imported materials and the costs of using scrap and pig iron in the production of steel. The Industry Fund is regulated on a basis which was the subject of an agreement between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and the Federation, and its accounts are readily available to the Government at all times. Full information is available. There is no mystery whatsoever about that.
The other part of the levy—and here we come to the part which really does excite hon. Members opposite—is known as the special levy, and has been referred to on previous occasions as the Is. a ton levy or the political levy. The special 1s. a ton levy covers a number of things. I have taken the trouble to obtain information from the Federation since our last debate, or, to be more accurate, the Federation have taken the trouble to approach me and have said that they would like me to be better informed about their levy than I was previously.
9.30 p.m.
As I have said, this levy covers a number of things—general administrative expenses, the compilation of statistics, expenditure in connection with scrap-collection, training schemes, certain capital expenditure and also public relations. I am going to be very forthcoming in regard to this information. The Board have no power to obtain any information about any of these things; nor have the Government at the present time. That does not mean to say that it is not possible to get this information or that it is not freely given.
This information—let me be clear about this—in regard to the special levy or in regard to any other levy for that matter, as I explained in the earlier debate, is really not, in my view, the direct concern of the Board. It does not affect the functions of the Board and, therefore, would not come under the provisions of this Amendment unless it related to

information which the Board required for the discharge of their duty.
In my belief it will be primarily, if not exclusively, in relation to price fixing that the Board will need to obtain information about the expenditure of the Federation or of any other trade association. As I explained earlier, if producers wish expenditure which they have incurred by way of a contribution to a trade association, to be taken into account in fixing prices, then, it will be up to them to satisfy the Board that the expenditure should rightly be included in the assessment of their costs of production.
Therefore, there will in fact be no difficulty, in my view, in obtaining all the information which will be needed by the Board to fix prices. It is in the interests of the iron and steel producers to provide that information, otherwise the Board will not allow for that in assessing the cost of production. But we have to keep a sense of proportion in the whole matter. A shilling a ton, when steel costs an average of £30 a ton, obviously is not going to make a very big difference to the price of steel or to the profits or the financial position of the iron and steel companies.
It has been alleged, not today but on an earlier occasion when we discussed this matter, that we were resisting this Amendment because we were under such heavy pressure from our masters in Steel House. I have on more than one occasion firmly denied that any pressure has been put upon me in regard to this Bill by the Iron and Steel Federation at Steel House. I have now to make a confession to the House.
Some pressure is being put upon me, and it is being put upon me by Steel House. Hon. Members may be surprised to know that the pressure being put upon me is that I should accept an Amendment somewhat in the sense proposed by the Opposition.
The Federation have sent me full particulars of the expenditure of the special levy. They undoubtedly feel that what has been said in the House about the levy has given a distorted impression of their activities and that it is in the general interest for the matter to be clarified. In view of the wild rumours and unfair allegations which have been made, I


propose to give this information to the House.
I have before me the details—I hope this will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)—of the way in which the Federation has spent the 1s. per ton levy in 1952. It covers what I should describe as external relations. This totals £19,000, the equivalent of about a farthing per ton on steel, and it is made up as follows: works visits by representatives of the technical Press and other similar activities, £3,500; preparation and publication of the Federation's quarterly reports and annual reports, £2,000; subscriptions to other bodies—the British Employers Confederation, the Federation of British Industries, the Council of Building Material Producers and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a very respectable body£7,300; and general publicity, mainly in connection with training, research and recruitment, £6,200. That adds up to £19,000. Thus, in 1952 nothing, or an entirely negligible sum, could in any way be regarded as being spent on political purposes.

Mr. Chetwynd: Which year was it?

Mr. Sandys: It was the calendar year 1952. However, in order to be absolutely fair, I must tell the House that the Federation have pointed out to me that, since the beginning of 1953, they have produced a pamphlet entitled "Policy for Steel," which they claim—I have not examined the document—is almost entirely an answer to attacks which have been made upon either themselves or the record of the steel industry. They have spent a few hundred pounds on the preparation, publication and circulation of the pamphlet.

Mr. G. Darling: The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman total less than £20,000. What has the Federation done with the remaining £780,000?

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time give the figures for the previous year when the General Election took place, because a contribution to "Aims of Industry" was alleged?

Mr. Sandys: I was dealing with public relations. Someone asked what that was

all about, and I thought I had better give the details. If hon. Members are interested, I will give details of the remainder.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to give the details of how the 1s. is made up. Salaries, rents and administrative expenses represent 3½d.; statistical compilation and publication, 1½d.; scrap drive publicity, Id.; training scheme organisation, ¾d.; reserve for capital expenditure, which includes the construction of ships for carrying ore and so on, 2½d.; external relations—that is the point I have just examined in detail—¼d.; and the remaining 2½d. which goes to make up the 1s. is for taxation. I hope that in giving those figures it will disperse the cloud of mystery which has appeared to surround this Fund.

Mr. Chetwynd: What about 1951?

Mr. Sandys: I have not got the figures for 1951, but I have given hon. Members details for a complete calendar year. Since then, as I pointed out, there was an expenditure of a few hundred pounds on the pamphlet I mentioned. No apologies are needed by any organisation for activities of this kind. I am merely stating facts. One of the objects in the articles of association of the Iron and Steel Federation, like most trade associations, is to promote, support or oppose legislation and, therefore, it is perfectly proper for them, as a trade association, to express their views on such matters.
In so far as there is political expenditure, it would not come within the scope of the Amendment moved by hon. Members opposite, which refers to information reasonably required for the Board in the discharge of their duties. Clearly the Board would not require to know about expenditure of a political character in order to carry out their duties, but the fact that the Federation have expressed a desire to see a provision of this kind introduced into the Bill is sufficient evidence that they intend and wish to provide the Board with any information that they may require.
The only reason why I hesitate to give effect to the wishes of hon. Members opposite is that they talk about Steel House and the Iron and Steel Federation as though they were the only body concerned. There are many other trade


associations which would be affected if the Amendment were adopted. I have a list of some of them here, but there are quite a number of others. I should like to read to hon. Members a few examples of the associations which would come within the scope of the Amendment if adopted in this form.
Apart from the Federation and the Council of Iron Producers, the Council of Ironfounders Associations and others would be brought in because foundries and forges are within the scope of the Bill. The other associations would include such organisations as the Cast Iron Axlebox Association, the Cast Iron Chair Association, the British Internal Combustion Engine Manufacturers' Association, the British Engineers' Association, the Locomotive Manufacturers' Associations of Great Britain, the Railway Carriage and Wagon Building Association, the Machine Tool Trades Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the British Pump Manufacturers' Association, the Agricultural Engineers' Association, the British Compressed Air Society, the Association of Crane Makers, the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, and the Metallic Bedstead Manufacturers' Association.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Darling: The Clause, as we propose it, would be permissive. Obviously, the Board would not write round to all those people about iron and steel production. They would go to the Federation which deals with the iron and steel producers.

Mr. Sandys: It might be permissive, but it might be very alarming for the bedstead manufacturers to see themselves brought into the Bill without their knowledge.

Mr. Mitchison: I was fascinated by that list. I do not think that making iron and steel is quite as easy as one sometimes thinks. Does that mean that the iron and steel producers contribute to all those bodies and that they all raise a levy for the bedstead manufacturers?

Mr. Sandys: I do not suppose that the bedstead manufacturers would take that lying down. The Amendment as it is drafted, includes much more than information about levies, as the hon. and

learned Gentleman will see if he looks at it. The Iron and Steel Federation have said that they would be very happy to see a Clause of this kind in the Bill, but the Amendment would cover a much wider field and I would not feel disposed without going into the matter much more closely, to accept it hastily. I am in sympathy with the proposal, because the fewer mysteries there are in these matters the better it is for all concerned.
I have given the House a good deal of information about this vexed question. I will try to go further. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can see their way to withdraw the Amendment, I, on my side, but without making a firm promise, because this is not so simple as it appears, will undertake to look into this problem closely in the spirit in which I have spoken this evening and to see whether it is possible to introduce a satisfactory Amendment. If it is, I will try to make arrangements for that to be done in another place.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman has been particularly forthcoming this evening. His speech was really an argument in favour of our Amendment. He showed us that it was very easy to produce these figures. There is no secrecy about them—anyhow, there is no secrecy about them in a year when there is no election. It is easy to show how much money was spent by the Iron and Steel Federation for political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman says that the wording of our Amendment is awkward because it would cover a large number of organisations, which might be alarmed at having to give a great deal of information. That is not a valid argument. I do not think there are many organisations or associations which impose a levy on the production of iron and steel. If there is more than one, I am certain that the Board would not want to make many inquiries from them.
What we have in mind is clear. I must repeat the reasons for which we are asking for this information. We say that the industrial fund is of the greatest importance in the iron and steel industry. Through the industrial fund just on £100 million was re-distributed among various producers in the industry last year. Nearly £100 million, and a quarter of the cost of the basic product, the steel ingot, is levy.
It is possible to alter the incidence of the levy without affecting final prices. For example, it would be possible to make those producers who use scrap pay 10s. or £1 more a ton and reduce the amount paid by those who use pig iron by a corresponding amount with no effect on the final prices. Therefore, we say that apart from price-fixing it is essential that the Board should be given full information about the levies by the iron and steel industry so that they can use their influence, if necessary, to get the levy varied. How the levy falls has a life and death effect on the individual units and plants in the industry.
Secondly, in regard to the special levy of 1s., about which the right hon. Gentleman has given us much valuable information, there is a lot of suspicion about it. It is a huge sum of money. Nearly £1 million a year goes to Steel House and up till now we have not known how and on what it has gone. In view of the political arena in which the Iron and Steel Federation has existed for a long time, there is a great deal of suspicion, whether justified or not we do not know, about the amount of money used by Steel House for political purposes, particularly at Election time, out of the fund raised by the 1s. a ton levy on all steel products. We still do not know the answer.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he will endeavour to meet our request and will see whether it is possible, between now and the time the Bill goes to another place, to carry out by an Amendment there what we have in mind. Before I can say that such a proposal is acceptable to us, I must ask one or two questions. Obviously, I have not had time to consult my colleagues since the proposal has only just been put to us by the right hon. Gentleman.
Is the Minister trying to meet our proposal, first, that the Federation—isolated for this purpose from other trade associations—shall disclose to the Board whenever called upon to do so, twice a year or whenever there is a change in the industrial levy, all the information which it may have about that levy and its incidence; and that that information shall be given to the Board by the Federation before any change takes place, so that the Board will always know what is proposed and will then be able to use

their influence if they think necessary in preventing or modifying such a proposal?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman further prepared, by the Amendment which he has in mind, to ensure that the Board or the Federation—we do not mind which—publishes annually a statement such as was given to us this evening by the Minister of Supply showing how the special levy of 1s. a ton is disposed of? He has told us the figures for the last year and I agree that they are perfectly innocent. However, I took grave exception to the document published by the Iron and Steel Federation early this year, a political document which seeks to ridicule statements which my colleagues on this side of the House have made from time to time about the steel industry. It sets out to ridicule the opposition to the Iron and Steel Bill and it is wrong that such a political document should be published by the Federation.
In short, we want to know how much of this money is used yearly for political purposes. Is the industry spending in Election year, a quarter of a million or half a million pounds in support of the Conservative Party? It has been suggested that that sort of thing does happen. We do not know.
If the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will undertake to do his best—I cannot see what the difficulty would be—to ensure that there is published yearly, either by the Board, or by the Federation, an account of how that special levy is used, in as detailed a manner as the Minister has given us tonight—and if it can be published for 1952 there is no reason why it should not be published for any future year, or, for that matter, for any past year, which might prove very interesting—and also the industrial fund in ample time before it is varied, we would withdraw the Amendment because that would meet all that we ask.
If the Minister seriously does his utmost to achieve that, there could be no difficulty about it. The only difficulty there might be is the opposition of his political colleagues in another place or from Steel House, but there could be no technical difficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to try to do as I suggest, we will take it that he has accepted the arguments which have been put forward,


and we would withdraw our Amendment and look forward to seeing the Amendment he proposes to introduce in another place.

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I can make the position absolutely clear. What I shall try to do is to find an appropriate form of words after examining the difficulties which I have explained: namely, the very wide range of associations which might be involved. I should not be prepared to put forward an Amendment which would bring in so many organisations, and I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that is reasonable. If some way can be found of including only the principal association concerned with the iron and steel industry, I propose to see whether an Amendment can be framed which will deal with expenditure roughly on the basis of the second half of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
As I explained, I am not prepared to encourage the duplication of the collection of the general information referred to in the first part of the Amendment and which the Board can get from producers. The second part of the Amendment deals with the expenditure in which, I understand, hon. Gentlemen opposite are mainly interested, and I will try to do as I have said. I repeat again that this is without any firm promise but with every good intention.

Mr. Gower: I think that after the statements my right hon. Friend the Minister has made tonight right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite owe him numerous apologies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They should formally recant——

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Member allow me——

Mr. Gower: I am sorry, but I am speaking for no more than a minute. Those of us who were present during the Committee stage will recall the fantastic statements made on the other side. Hon.

Members opposite created in their imagination a lion and they have found a lamb.
As my right hon. Friend quite clearly stated, he has given a very clear description of the figures. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) asserted that this could be done in a non-election year but not in an election year, forgetting that the Minister has promised to study the possibilities of giving such figures in any year, either present or future. My right hon. Friend is to be commended for the action he has taken.

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. John Hynd: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(3) For the purposes of verifying or amplifying any information or forecast furnished by an iron or steel producer to the Board or to the Minister under either of the preceding subsections of this section, the Board or, as the case may be, the Minister, may by notice in writing require that iron and steel producer to provide facilities for the inspection by any person authorised by the Board or, as the case may be, by the Minister, of any property of or under the control of that iron and steel producer, being property to which that information or forecast relates.
In the state in which the Bill now finds itself, this is perhaps one of the most important Amendments that we will have to discuss. I remind the Minister that earlier Amendments from this side have suggested that some effective control of the industry should be operated by the Board. The Government, however, have effectively resisted these Amendments and have indicated that they have no intention of accepting any kind of effective control by the Board.

It being Ten o'Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — REMANUFACTURED WOOL

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House no now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. William Paling: A Question was asked in the House recently by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) with reference to the quality of wool. The hon. Lady asked the President of the Board of Trade:
whether he is aware of the extent to which the structural strength of wool cloths is debased by the inclusion of large percentages of remanufactured shoddy; and whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that the presence of shoddy shall be made notifiable to the public, in view of the increasing use of re-manufactured fibres in the wool industry, to the detriment of the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 580.]
I represent an area where an abundance of shoddy is made, and I must take this opportunity to defend the industry against these charges. What is the shoddy industry? It is the reclaiming of woollen waste from rags and suits of clothing, Army, Air Force, Navy and police uniforms, ladies' woollens of various kinds and cast-offs of a great variety. These materials are processed in up-to-date mills. The point I wish to emphasise is that these rags are sorted quality by quality, which means much, not only to the shoddy industry, but to the woollen industry as well.
The name "shoddy" sounds psychologically wrong. Shoddy was invented about 140 years ago when the name was always used as a noun. Today, we use the word as an adjective more than a noun and very often it is used in connection with the industry in that way. This industry deals with recovered and remanufactured wool fibres and there is nothing wrong with that.
The recovery of wool in this way means a lot to this country. It is a valuable aid to the national economy because the large proportion of used wool which is recovered and remanufactured results in a great saving. The production and use of shoddy is equivalent to a great export trade, because we are saving the importation of wool and the currency which would be expended upon it. If this can

be done and is done without detriment to the cloth, it would be folly to take any steps which might result in discrediting or discouraging this very useful section of the British industry.
The world production of wool is far below the quantity required for the population of the world if we use nothing but virgin wool. Therefore, in this country and in other countries it is necessary to use these sources of supply given by the shoddy industry. If shoddy were not used, many people in this and other countries would be dressed in a far worse manner than at present, If we had to use virgin wool many thousands of families would be unable to afford a reasonable suit, coat, or dress.
The use of recovered fibres enables us to conserve foreign currency, helps the employment of British workers and means a large range of goods at reasonable prices. Shoddy is to the wool industry what scrap is to the steel industry and I do not think anyone would say that the steel industry is debased by using scrap. If we took quality for quality and used virgin wool for the manufacture of articles as against virgin wool plus a certain amount of shoddy, prices would at least double on most commodities such as suitings and coatings. The very fact of using shoddy with wool enables us to maintain a reasonably priced range of the goods which people require every day.
It is interesting to note the remarks of the President of the Shoddy and Mungo Manufacturers' Association at their annual meeting a fortnight ago. He considered that it was important to note that the productive capacity of the industry acted as a definite economic brake on the wool market, that the world could not he clothed without mungo and shoddy and that the skill of the users of these raw materials in the woollen trade conferred both a benefit and boon on the consuming public of the world.
Those words are very true and very important. In this country there is tremendous value in the amount of rags collected each year. If it were not for the waste trades all that valuable material would be thrown away. If it were collected it would find a ready market overseas and we could have imports to this country of ranges of clothing with which we could not possibly compete in price if we had


to rely solely on virgin wool for our manufacture. Collecting rags does not sound a very nice phrase, but if hon. Members went into one of the mills and saw the type of stuff collected and how it is graded from high-class down to the lowest, which is used for flocks, and so on, they would appreciate the value of this industry.
We also get clippings from tailors and dressmakers and hosiery waste from hosiery manufacturers, and so on, which is almost the equivalent of virgin wool. The reclamation and reproduction of this wool is of the utmost importance to the industry from the point of view of an availability in quantity, of the variety of quality and last but not least of price.
In fact, it is stated, and I think it can be proved beyond all doubt, that some shoddy products are better than some products manufactured from pure wool, because there is in shoddy a number of grades of quality just as there are qualities in the wool trade. Some of the better quality articles of shoddy manufacture are capable of much better wear and are also more attractive than many of the articles that can be produced from some qualities of pure wool.
The question which was raised in this matter was the suggestion that anything that contained shoddy should be labelled. We have to remember, however, that if labelling were introduced, it would have to be enforced, and we must remember a very vital point in this connection. There are no means today of detecting recovered fibre in the mixture of virgin wool and recovered wool. Therefore, that point in itself cuts right across the argument about shoddy debasing wool, because there is no debasing of quality.
For instance, let us take the Government contracts for clothing for the Army and the Air Force, the police and Civil Defence forces. In this clothing, shoddy plays a most important part, and one manufacturer has sent me samples of the quality goods he manufactures. One of these samples is for Civil Defence clothing according to Government standards—waterproofed, strong, useful and warm—and it would make an overcoat that almost anyone would be proud to wear in a sort of winter we have been having. Yet, there is over 80 per cent. shoddy in that particular cloth, which is a really beautiful piece of stuff. There

are also the overcoats made for the Air Force and Army, as well as the suitings for these Forces.
It is just as well to know that these cloths have to be supplied to a standard specification, but yet the Government do not ask for labels on the rolls of cloth indicating that they contain a proportion of shoddy. Are these cloths debased by the use of shoddy? Are their wearing qualities impaired in that way? I venture to say that, if there were any debasing of these cloths, or if they were of poor quality, the Army and Air Force authorities would immediately cease to have that type of stuff made up for their requirements. Today, we find that there are great orders for it, and the Royal Navy, Army and the Royal Air Force are better dressed today than they have ever been, thanks very much to the shoddy industry and the contribution which it has made.
Therefore, I say that this whole argument about debasing cloth and the necessity for labelling is sheer nonsense. Cloths with well-known names that are known throughout the country contain shoddy. We have also to think of public demand. First of all, the public want durability, then good appearance, and, last but not least, something easy on the pocket. Manufacturers today have to meet that kind of public demand and make clothes in the ranges which the public want. The British housewife is very difficult to satisfy, in that she does not want something that is to last for years, but something that is attractive and suitable for the time, but, as fashion changes, she wants to be able to change both in style and material.
The shoddy industry plays an important part and is the mainspring in helping to meet the demand in shade values, style, design and appearance. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. South is not present because I am sure that she would be attracted by some of the coatings I have in my hand, which contain quite a large proportion of shoddy. I have a number of samples from the trade which I hope to have the opportunity of placing in the Library for the benefit of Members.
The public demands attractive clothes of good quality, and it gets them. The manufacturer who tried to cut out something that was not in conformity with the


general standards of the trade would be sunk, because the retailer, the costumier and the tailor would not go to him again for goods. Whoever says that the use of shoddy has a debasing effect and that, by its use, the consumer is being "twisted," shows a lamentable ignorance of the relation of remanufactured wool to the wool and textile industry.

10.16 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling), first, on his success in being able to raise this important subject in the House, and, secondly, on his interesting and erudite speech to which we have just listened. I wish also to thank him for his generous consideration in allowing me an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The five towns of England where fluorishes the important industry of turning old woollen cloth into new are, in order of size, Dewsbury, Batley, Morley, Ossett and Heckmondwike. Three towns, including Dewsbury, which is the largest, lie within the constituency of my hon. Friend. The boroughs of Batley and Morley form the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
The staple trade of this thickly populated area of the West Riding of Yorkshire is of vital importance to my constituents and, indeed, to the nation. The annual raw wool clip of the world is not nearly sufficient to meet the annual demand for woollen cloth, and if wool were not recovered from old cloth there would be a serious shortage of warm garments. We should be cold and shabby.
It was in 1815, the year in which we defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, that the problem of providing enough woollen cloth for human needs was solved. Benjamin Law of Batley invented a most ingenious process whereby wool was reclaimed from old cloth to be used again in the manufacture of new material. Since then thousands of tons of old suits and other woollen garments have provided wool for mixing with the new clip to produce millions of yards of excellent cloth.
These discarded garments, some of which have been little worn, are carefully

sorted; buttons and the like are removed, and the cloth is then disintegrated into its component fibres. The resultant material is called shoddy. In the process of remanufacture—which is very complicated and includes spinning, weaving, scouring and pressing—shoddy is usually mixed with new wool, and all traces of grit, dust and grease are removed.
The cloth thus made is perfectly clean, very serviceable, good in appearance and reasonable in price. Taking those four considerations into account, namely, cleanliness, durability, appearance and price, much of the best English cloth contains recovered wool. The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), in her Question to the President of the Board of Trade on 12th February last, asked:
whether he is aware of the extent to which the structural strength of wool cloths is debased by the inclusion of large percentages of remanufactured shoddy.
"Structural strength debased" were her words, and they are resented in my constituency where it is well recognised that in some cases good shoddy strengthens poor wool.
The hon. Lady asked for legislation
in view of the increasing use of remanufactured fibres in the wool industry, to the detriment of the consumer.
"Detriment" was another unfortunate word that she chose to use. If evidence is required of the hard-wearing quality of cloth containing shoddy, many examples can be given, such as Army overcoats, Post Office and British Railways uniforms.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for the reply he gave to the hon. Lady. Correctly he stated:
Both recovered and virgin wools vary greatly in quality.
He went on to say:
I cannot accept the implication in the Question that the inclusion of the former"—
that is shoddy—
in wool cloth necessarily debases its structural strength."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 580.]
Some of the most durable English cloth is woven with a worsted warp and a weft containing shoddy. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not fail to reaffirm the opinion of his right hon. Friend


and will not miss this opportunity of paying a tribute to the work of thousands of people in those five towns which I mentioned. Their work is of tremendous importance to the nation. It is they who rescue scarce, valuable wool from destruction and waste and re-convert it into much needed, excellent English cloth.

10.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I have not much time in which to reply, but I make no complaint whatever of that because the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) and the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) have very excellently said most of the things which I wished to say. The hon. Member for Dewsbury quite rightly said that some of this confusion has arisen perhaps because of the dual use of this word "shoddy."
In the Oxford English Dictionary the primary use given to this word is the technical meaning in the wool trade, which has been used by the two hon. Members. It is only in its transferred and figurative sense that it is used as "a worthless material made to look like what is of superior quality." I noticed an interesting quotation from the Encyclopaedia Britannica of as long ago as 1911, which stated:
Upon the whole the 'cheap and nasty' idea usually associated with the term 'shoddy' is quite a mistake. Some most excellent cloths are produced.
As has been said, this is, of course, a perfectly legitimate and useful industry, recovered wool being a traditional raw material of the textile industry. The shoddy manufacturing community of the West Riding is the most maligned section of the wool textile industry. I shall use the term "recovered wool" instead of "shoddy" in the remainder of my few remarks.
The hon. Members who have spoken are quite right in saying that the addition of recovered wool confers desirable qualities. Felting properties might be mentioned. It is quite true that contracts for the supply of greatcoats, for example, may specify that a definite proportion of recovered wool shall be employed. It is true also that some recovered wool, for example clippings obtained in the making up of knitted garments, may command

higher prices than the coarser qualities of virgin wool. A distinction between virgin and recovered wool affords no guide to the quality of the cloth. But I want to confirm and underline a point which was very effectively made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury—because this very much concerns the Board of Trade and the national interest—namely, the amount of imports saved by the use of recovered wool. From a waste material we get a valuable raw material for a great industry.
I am glad the hon. Member mentioned Ossett. Perhaps I may remind the House of the Latin motto in the Ossett coat of arms—"Inutile utile ex arte"—the useless made useful by skill. What does this mean in terms of money? One million lb. of recovered wool saves 1.6 million lb. of imported raw wool. This, in 1952, would have cost on an average £400,000. Since 73 million lb. of recovered wool were consumed in the United Kingdom in 1952, the amount saved on the imports of raw wool was no less than £29 million. That shows the very significant contribution which is made by this industry.

Mr. H. Rhodes: There is another factor to be considered. If this recovered wool were not used the impact on the price of raw wool to take its place would be terrific.

Mr. Strauss: I quite agree with that point, on which the hon. Member speaks with the authority of experience.
The amount of recovered wool used has varied at different times in accordance with some of the considerations that will occur to everyone, but at the present moment the proportion of recovered wool to total consumption is probably about 15 per cent., which is roughly the same proportion as in the United States, though in France it is, I believe, a good deal higher.
Those who have heard the contributions to this short debate can have no doubt that this is a useful industry. The attacks—if I may so call them—on the use of recovered wool are based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts. Those who make these mistaken statements may have been led away by the other uses of the word "shoddy," but I hope that this debate may at least help to ensure that in future this industry will not be maligned in this way.

Mr. John Edwards: I rise only to thank the Parliamentary Secretary not only for the way in which he has confirmed the statements made by my hon. Friends, but also for his own contribution to the defence of a very important industry. It is most satisfactory to find ourselves in agreement on this matter, and I am sure that the people in the constituencies of my

two hon. Friends—and, if I may say so with all due modesty, in my own constituency—will be immensely heartened by this discussion.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.